text
stringlengths 558
17k
|
---|
# Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
Cuban-Americans and most of the world oppose the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community.
More than 80% of Cuban Americans surveyed in 2011 said the embargo has worked not very well or not at all. A 2012 opinion poll of more than 1,000 US adults found that 62% of respondents thought the United States should re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba.
The United Nations has formally denounced the US embargo on Cuba every year since 1991. In 2019, 187 countries in the UN General Assembly voted to condemn the US policy; only Israel and Brazil sided with the United States.
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation.
Because the federal minimum wage is not indexed for inflation, its purchasing power (the number of goods that can be bought with a unit of currency) has dropped considerably since its peak in 1968. The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, which is equivalent to $11.16 in Jan. 2016 dollars and which is 53.9% higher than today’s $7.25 federal minimum wage. Between July 2015 and the last increase in the minimum wage in 2009, the federal minimum wage lost 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. According to Liana Fox, PhD, Senior Analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, “inflation indexing guarantees low-wage workers a wage that keeps pace with the rising costs of goods and services.” Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation would ensure that low-wage workers could adopt a standard of living commensurate with the current economy.
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.
According to the CDC’s “Leading Causes of Death Reports,” between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer’s (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.
**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 the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Increasing the minimum wage would force businesses to lay off employees and raise unemployment levels.
The Congressional Budget Office projected that a minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $10.10 would result in a loss of 500,000 jobs. In a survey of 1,213 businesses and human resources professionals, 38% of employers who currently pay minimum wage said they would lay off some employees if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10. 54% said they would decrease hiring levels. San Francisco’s Office of Economic Analysis said that an increase to $15 would reduce the city’s employment by about “15,270 private sector jobs.” In 2014, Steve H. Hanke, PhD, Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, surveyed the 21 European Union (EU) countries that have a minimum wage and found they had an average unemployment rate of 11.8%, about a third higher than the 7.9% average unemployment rate in the seven EU countries that have no minimum wage.
**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**
Moving Halloween would ignore the holiday's ancient and religious traditions.
The origins of Halloween have religious and cultural importance, tracing back 2,000 years to the pagan festival Samhain (pronounced “sow-in”), in which the ancient Celts celebrated the end of summer from sunset on Oct. 31 to sunset on Nov. 1. They believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth, blurring the boundary between the living and dead. Around 43 AD, the Romans, who were then ruling the Celtic territory, combined their Feralia festival honoring the dead with the Samhain activities.
The Catholic church has observed All Saints’ Day (also known as All Hallows or Hallowmas) on Nov. 1 since the mid-eighth century. Halloween, originally “All Hallows’ Eve” or “Vigil or Eve of All Hallows” therefore takes place the day before, on Oct. 31.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Halloween takes place on Oct. 31 regardless of the day of the week. In 2021, Halloween is on a Sunday. In 2020, Halloween fell on a Saturday, though the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic led many jurisdictions to adapt or cancel traditional activities. [33]
According to tradition, children in the United States dress up in costumes and go door-to-door in their neighborhoods saying “trick or treat” to receive candy.
Some would like to see Halloween held on a Saturday every year for safety reasons, and petitioned President Trump via change.org. However, others point out that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to make that change because Halloween isn’t a federal holiday. [1] [2] [3]
About 172 million Americans celebrated Halloween in 2019. The top costumes for kids were princess, superhero, Batman, a Star Wars character, and a witch. Almost 17% of Americans buy costumes for their pets, with the top choices being pumpkins, hot dogs, and bumblebees. Americans spent an estimated $8.8 billion, or $86.27 per person, in 2019 on Halloween goods such as candy to hand out, decorations, costumes, and pumpkins. [34]
Fewer Americans celebrated Halloween in 2020 (148 million), likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures, however those who did celebrate spent more individually on their festivities at $92.12 per person, or about $8.0 billion total. Top kids’ costumes were princess, Spiderman, superhero, ghost, and Batman. [35]
In 2021, experts expect consumers to spend a record $10.14 billion as more people plan to hand out candy or attend parties than in 2020. [36]
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Physicians from as early as the 17th century have referenced obesity as a disease.
English physician Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689) wrote, “Corpulency [obesity] may be ranked amongst the diseases arising from original imperfections in the functions of some of the organs.” William Wadd, a 19th century British surgeon and medical author, wrote, “when in excess–amounting to what may be termed OBESITY–[fat] is not only in itself a disease, but may be the cause of many fatal effects, particularly in acute disorders.” In the Feb. 12, 1825 issue of The Medical Advisor and Guide to Health and Long Life, Robert Thomas, a 19th century doctor, wrote “Corpulence, when it arrives at a certain height, becomes an absolute disease.”
**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 Abortion Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives.
The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.
The “abortion pill” (Mifeprex) has a better safety record than common over-the-counter drugs including Tylenol, as well as prescriptions like penicillin and Viagra. Medication abortion (a combination of Mifeprex and Misoprostol) has a mortality rate of 6.5 deaths per one million patients.
Pregnancy-related maternal deaths could increase 20% in US states with abortion bans. Amanda Stevenson, Sociology Professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained, “People with resources are more likely to make it out of state or find out about medication abortions. People who can’t are more likely to have health issues, to live in poverty and have less access to resources.” People of color are especially likely to be in the latter category and, thus, negatively impacted by abortion bans.
The predicted 20% maternal death rate does not include those who will die from “back alley” or illegal abortions because legal options were not available.
Globally 45% of abortions are unsafe, 97% of which take place in developing countries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions; however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws.”
**Background**
The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests.
Proponents of legal abortion believe abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives, while abortion bans endanger pregnant people not seeking abortions, and deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.
Opponents of legal abortion believe abortion is murder because life begins at conception, that abortion creates a culture in which life is disposable, and that increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.Read more background…
|
# Police Body Cameras - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Police body cameras decrease the safety of police officers and negatively affect their physical and mental health.
Assaults on police officers were 14% higher when body cameras were present. Some people may respond negatively or violently to being filmed by police, especially those who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or who are suffering from mental health problems.
University of Oklahoma Professor of Law Stephen E. Henderson, JD, stated that the use of police body cameras may be psychologically damaging to officers because “nobody does well to be under constant surveillance.”
Pat Lynch, President of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, stated officers “are already weighed down with equipment like escape hoods [gas masks], Mace, flashlights, memo books, ASPs [batons], radio, handcuffs and the like. Additional equipment becomes an encumbrance and a safety issue for those carrying it.”
Other potential health and safety issues include head and neck injuries, electric shock or burns from faulty or damaged equipment, and the spread of contagious infectious diseases if the units are shared.
**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]
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects.
When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals.
**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…
|
# Corporal Punishment in K-12 Schools - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
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.
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.”
Some experts state that corporal punishment prevents children from persisting in their bad behavior and growing up to be criminals.
**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 Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
Most parents and educators support mandatory school uniforms.
A survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer Lands’ End found that a majority of school leaders believe their school uniform or formal dress code policies have had a positive impact on classroom discipline (85%), the school’s image in the community (83%), student safety (79%), school pride (77%), and student achievement (64%). A poll administered by the Harford County, MD school system found that “teachers and administrators were overwhelmingly in favor” of introducing school uniforms. The poll also found that 58% of parents wanted a mandatory uniform policy instated.
**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…
|
# Vaping Pros and Cons - 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Vaping causes serious health risks, including depression, lung disease, and stroke.
Nicotine use by young people may increase the risk of addiction to other drugs and impair prefrontal brain development, which can lead to ADD and disrupt impulse control. Adult vapers are also more than twice as likely to be diagnosed as depressed than their non-vaping peers.
The CDC confirmed six vaping-related deaths and over 450 possible cases of lung illness associated with e-cigarettes as of Sep. 6, 2019. People who use e-cigarettes have a 71% increased risk of stroke and 40% higher risk of heart disease, as compared to nonusers. Studies have shown that e-cigarettes can cause arterial stiffness and cardiovascular harm, and may increase the odds of a heart attack by 42%.
Researchers who found increased risk of blood clots from e-cigarettes wrote, “these devices do emit considerable levels of toxicants, some of which are shared/overlap with tobacco smoking; and thus their harm should not be underestimated.”
Scientists at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that e-cigarettes leak toxic metals, possibly from the heating coils, that are associated with health problems such as kidney disease, respiratory irritation, shortness of breath, and more.
Some ingredients in the liquids used in e-cigarettes change composition when they are heated, leading to inhalation of harmful compounds such as formaldehyde, which is carcinogenic.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Vaping is the act of using e-cigarettes, which were first introduced in the United States around 2006. [5]
E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol vapor for inhalation. The liquid used in e-cigarettes is also known as e-liquid or vape juice. The main components are generally flavoring, nicotine, and water, along with vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol, which distribute the flavor and nicotine in the liquid and create the vapor. Popular flavorings include mint, mango, and tobacco. [3] [4] [44] [45]
E-cigarettes are also known as “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” “vaporizers,” “e-pipes,” and “electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).” Some e-cigarettes are made to resemble regular cigarettes, cigars, or pipes, while others look like pens or USB flash drives. [7] [42] [43]
The JUUL brand of e-cigarettes, a vaporizer shaped like a USB drive, launched in 2015 and captured nearly 75% of the market in 2018, becoming so popular that vaping is often referred to as “juuling.” Juul’s market popularity has since declined to 42% in 2020. [7] [8] [9] [51]
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated e-cigarettes as a tobacco product since 2016. On Sep. 11, 2019, the Trump administration announced plans to have the FDA end sales of non-tobacco e-cigarette flavors such as mint or menthol in response to concerns over teen vaping. E-cigarette manufacturers were required to request FDA permission to keep flavored products on the market. The FDA had until Sep. 9, 2021 to make a decision. [6][46] [49]
On Sep. 9, 2021, Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock and Director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products Mitch Zeller announced that the FDA had made decisions on 93% of the 6.5 million submitted applications for “deemed” new tobacco products (“‘deemed’ new” means the FDA newly has authority to review the products but the products may already be on the market), including denying 946,000 vaping products “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use.” The FDA had taken no action on JUUL products as of Sep. 9. [55] [56] [57]
On Oct. 12, 2021, the FDA authorized the Vuse e-cigarette and cartridges, marketed by R.J. Reynolds one of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers. The move is the first time the FDA authorized any vaping product. According to a statement from the FDA, the organization “determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth.” [58]
On June 23, 2022, the FDA ordered Juul to stop selling “all of their products currently marketed in the United States.” The order included removing products currently on the market, including Juul devices (vape pens) and pods (cartridges). The following day, June 24, 2022, a federal appeals court temporarily put the ban on hold while the court reviewed Juul’s appeal. On Sep. 6, 2022, Juul settled a lawsuit brought by almost 36 states and Puerto Rico. The states and Puerto Rico accused Juul of marketing to minors. Juul admitted no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuit, but the company will have to pay $438.5 million, stop marketing to youth, stop funding education in schools, and stop misrepresenting the amount of nicotine in the products. [61] [62] [63]
Nearly 11 million American adults used e-cigarettes in 2018, more than half of whom were under age 35. One in five high school students used e-cigarettes to vape nicotine in 2018. E-cigarettes were the fourth most popular tobacco products with 4% of retail sales, behind traditional cigarettes (83%), chewing/smokeless tobacco (8%), and cigars (5%) as of Feb. 2019. The global e-cigarette and vape market was worth $15.04 billion in 2020. [1][2][8] [50]
According to the most recent CDC data (2018), 9.7% of current cigarette smokers were also current vapers, though 49.4% of current smokers had vaped at some point. Of former smokers who had quit within the last year, 25.2% were current vapers and 57.3% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit one to four years ago, 17.3% were current vapers and and 48.6% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit five or more years ago, 1.7% were current vapers and 9% had tried vaping. And of people who have never smoked, 1.5% were current vapers and 6.5% had tried vaping. [52]
18-29 year olds were more likely to say they vaped (17%) than smoked cigarettes, while every older age group was more likely to smoke than vape. [54]
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories.
Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun.
**Background**
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background…
|
# Should People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
A vegetarian diet is better for the environment.
Overgrazing livestock hurts the environment through soil compaction, erosion, and harm to native plants and animals. Significant portions of the 11 western states are grazed by livestock. Grazing has been a factor in the listing of at least 171 species of animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act because the large tracts of flat land interrupt natural habitats. Grazing has also damaged streams and riparian areas in the western United States. Abstaining from meat would help restore land more naturally suited to provide habitat for native plants and animals.
A vegetarian diet conserves water. Producing one pound of beef takes about 1,800 gallons of water, about 576 gallons per pound of pork, about 486 gallons per pound of turkey, and about 468 gallons per pound of chicken. A pound of tofu only takes about 302 gallons.
Meanwhile, raising animals for food contributes to air and water pollution. Manure produces toxic hydrogen sulfide and ammonia which pollute the air and leach poisonous nitrates into nearby waters. Runoff laden with manure is a major cause of “dead zones” in 173,000 miles of US waterways, including the 7,700-square-mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. People living near CAFOs often have respiratory problems from hydrogen sulfide and ammonia air pollution. A peer-reviewed 2006 study of Iowa students near a CAFO found 19.7% had asthma – nearly three times the state average of 6.7%.
A vegetarian diet leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are created by enteric fermentation (aka animal farts and burps), manure decomposition, and deforestation to make room for grazing animals and growing feed. A June 2014 peer-reviewed study found that diets including meat cause the creation of up to 54% more greenhouse gas emissions than vegetarian diets. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, a “worldwide diet change away from animal products” is necessary to stop the worst effects of global climate change.
**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…
|
# Vaping Pros and Cons - 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
E-cigarettes help adults quit smoking and lowers youth smoking rates.
A July 2019 study found that cigarettes smokers who picked up vaping were 67% more likely to quit smoking. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that e-cigarettes are twice as effective at getting people to quit smoking as traditional nicotine replacements such as the patch and gum. E-cigarettes caused a 50% increase in the rate of people using a product designed to help people quit smoking.
Peter Hajek, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Queen Mary University London, said, “smokers who switch to vaping remove almost all the risks smoking poses to their health.”
Vaping has likely contributed to record low levels of youth cigarette smoking, which hit a record-low of just 4.6% of high school students in 2020, down from 19.8% in 2006 (the year e-cigarettes were introduced in the United States).
Further, a report from Public Health England found no evidence that vaping is an entry into smoking for young people.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Vaping is the act of using e-cigarettes, which were first introduced in the United States around 2006. [5]
E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol vapor for inhalation. The liquid used in e-cigarettes is also known as e-liquid or vape juice. The main components are generally flavoring, nicotine, and water, along with vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol, which distribute the flavor and nicotine in the liquid and create the vapor. Popular flavorings include mint, mango, and tobacco. [3] [4] [44] [45]
E-cigarettes are also known as “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” “vaporizers,” “e-pipes,” and “electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).” Some e-cigarettes are made to resemble regular cigarettes, cigars, or pipes, while others look like pens or USB flash drives. [7] [42] [43]
The JUUL brand of e-cigarettes, a vaporizer shaped like a USB drive, launched in 2015 and captured nearly 75% of the market in 2018, becoming so popular that vaping is often referred to as “juuling.” Juul’s market popularity has since declined to 42% in 2020. [7] [8] [9] [51]
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated e-cigarettes as a tobacco product since 2016. On Sep. 11, 2019, the Trump administration announced plans to have the FDA end sales of non-tobacco e-cigarette flavors such as mint or menthol in response to concerns over teen vaping. E-cigarette manufacturers were required to request FDA permission to keep flavored products on the market. The FDA had until Sep. 9, 2021 to make a decision. [6][46] [49]
On Sep. 9, 2021, Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock and Director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products Mitch Zeller announced that the FDA had made decisions on 93% of the 6.5 million submitted applications for “deemed” new tobacco products (“‘deemed’ new” means the FDA newly has authority to review the products but the products may already be on the market), including denying 946,000 vaping products “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use.” The FDA had taken no action on JUUL products as of Sep. 9. [55] [56] [57]
On Oct. 12, 2021, the FDA authorized the Vuse e-cigarette and cartridges, marketed by R.J. Reynolds one of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers. The move is the first time the FDA authorized any vaping product. According to a statement from the FDA, the organization “determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth.” [58]
On June 23, 2022, the FDA ordered Juul to stop selling “all of their products currently marketed in the United States.” The order included removing products currently on the market, including Juul devices (vape pens) and pods (cartridges). The following day, June 24, 2022, a federal appeals court temporarily put the ban on hold while the court reviewed Juul’s appeal. On Sep. 6, 2022, Juul settled a lawsuit brought by almost 36 states and Puerto Rico. The states and Puerto Rico accused Juul of marketing to minors. Juul admitted no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuit, but the company will have to pay $438.5 million, stop marketing to youth, stop funding education in schools, and stop misrepresenting the amount of nicotine in the products. [61] [62] [63]
Nearly 11 million American adults used e-cigarettes in 2018, more than half of whom were under age 35. One in five high school students used e-cigarettes to vape nicotine in 2018. E-cigarettes were the fourth most popular tobacco products with 4% of retail sales, behind traditional cigarettes (83%), chewing/smokeless tobacco (8%), and cigars (5%) as of Feb. 2019. The global e-cigarette and vape market was worth $15.04 billion in 2020. [1][2][8] [50]
According to the most recent CDC data (2018), 9.7% of current cigarette smokers were also current vapers, though 49.4% of current smokers had vaped at some point. Of former smokers who had quit within the last year, 25.2% were current vapers and 57.3% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit one to four years ago, 17.3% were current vapers and and 48.6% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit five or more years ago, 1.7% were current vapers and 9% had tried vaping. And of people who have never smoked, 1.5% were current vapers and 6.5% had tried vaping. [52]
18-29 year olds were more likely to say they vaped (17%) than smoked cigarettes, while every older age group was more likely to smoke than vape. [54]
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control efforts have proved ineffective.
According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, “there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates.” Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The “gun show loophole” is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.
**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…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them.
The US Surgeon General’s list of risk factors for youth violence included abusive parents, poverty, neglect, neighborhood crime, being male, substance use, and mental health problems, but not video games.
A peer-reviewed study even found a “real and significant” effect of hot weather on homicides and aggravated assaults, showing that heat is a risk factor for violence.
**Background**
Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media can facilitate inappropriate student-teacher relationships.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) opened 222 cases about “inappropriate relationships” between educators and students in the 2015-16 school year; 86 cases were investigated in 2007-2008 and education experts blame the rise of social media for this increase. Pamela Casey, a District Attorney in Alabama who has prosecuted teachers who had relationships with students, says that social media adds to the problem: “We say and do things on social media and cell phones that we wouldn’t say and do in person… As a result, there’s a wall that’s been removed.”
**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…
|
# DC & Puerto Rico Statehood - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Denying DC and Puerto Rico statehood is a racist and hypocritical partisan ploy by conservatives to deny voting rights to about 3.8 million voters.
DC has about 712,000 citizens and Puerto Rico about 3.1 million citizens, none of whom have full voting rights because of a lack of representation in Congress.
Most of those voters are black and/or Latino/Hispanic. DC’s population is 46% black and 19.4% other people of color. Admission of DC would make it the second majority nonwhite state after Hawaii. Puerto Rico is 98.7% Latino or Hispanic and 34.8% other people of color. While a majority of Puerto Ricans identify as white, the island’s predominantly Spanish culture makes them easily racialized by those opposing statehood.
Though writing specifically about DC, the following statement by senior Obama speechwriter David Litt applies equally to Puerto Rico: “Withholding statehood… is part of a far more sinister nationwide effort to disenfranchise nonwhite Americans at disproportionate rates. Today, nonwhite Americans are more likely to be purged from voter rolls; more likely to live in gerrymandered ‘vote sinks’ where elections are effectively decided by maps and not voters; more likely to endure horrifically long lines to vote, when they can at all. These efforts to minimize the impact of nonwhite votes, whether motivated by cynical partisanship or explicit white supremacy, are a legacy of the most shameful part of American history. This is the context in which D.C. statehood has been denied for more than a century.”
The Republican argument that adding DC or Puerto Rico is a ploy to unfairly gain more liberal voters is hypocritical and belies how Republicans brought in a number of states. George Derek Musgrove, PhD, History Professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, explained: “Western states that were brought in in the late 19th century — Colorado, the Dakotas — were not only brought in on a party-line vote, but they were brought in specifically with the purpose to pad Republican majorities.”
Republicans sped up Nevada’s admission in 1864 to give President Lincoln an election boost, and lobbied to have the Dakota territory split in two–North and South Dakota–during the 1889 statehood process in order to gain four Republican senators instead of two. Hawaii was granted statehood in order to gain Republican representation after Alaska provided Democrats a boost.
Finally, the 2020 GOP platform (which was a renewal of the 2016 platform) plainly states the Republican party’s support for Puerto Rico statehood.
**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 Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
OTC birth control pills could further lower teen pregnancy rates.
From 1991 to 2019, the nationwide teen pregnancy rate dropped 73% among 15- to 19-year-olds. Experts believe the drop is due increased contraceptive use and delayed sexual activity in teens.
Teens may be more likely to use OTC birth control because taking the Pill is a daily routine and is not tied to the emotional pressure attached to sex the way using a condom is.
Krishna Upadhya, physician, stated: “Decades of research show that a majority of adolescents initiate sex before the age of 18 and that earlier use of contraception reduces the risk of teen pregnancy. Our review strongly suggests that giving teens easier access to various contraceptives will not lead to more sex but would result in fewer unwanted pregnancies… [and] any future over-the-counter pill has the potential to benefit teens.”
**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 Pit Bulls Be Banned? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
BSL is a humane way to discourage pit bull breeding and fighting.
An estimated 80% of all dogs are spayed or neutered. However, only about 20% of pit bulls are sterilized. And only about 38% of animal shelter admissions are pit bulls, but the dogs account for 63% of shelter euthanizations.
Bans of pit bulls are an effective way to prevent more pit bulls from being bred and, thus, more pit bulls from being confiscated and killed in shelters, not to mention preventing the dogs from being tortured in fighting rings.
Pit bulls are more likely to be confiscated or surrendered to a shelter because they are disproportionately selectively bred for fighting, and, therefore, more likely to injure or kill a human, another dog, or other animals.
Further, pit bull fighting rings are often tied to other illegal activities, including drug possession and distribution, gun distribution, assault, and murder.
BSL eliminates or lessens these problems at the root by preventing pit bulls from being bred in the first place, much less allowing the dogs to be trained, abused, or neglected into aggressive behavior.
**Background**
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a “blanket term for laws that regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals,” according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The laws are also called pit bull bans and breed-discriminatory laws. [1]
The legislation frequently covers any dog deemed a “pit bull,” which can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes, though any dog that resembles a pit bull or pit bull mix can be included in the bans. Other dogs are also sometimes regulated, including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as mixes of these breeds or, again, dogs that simply resemble the restricted breeds. [1]
The term “pit bull” refers to a dog with certain characteristics, rather than a specific breed. Generally, the dogs have broad heads and muscular bodies. Pit bulls are targeted because of their history in dog fighting. [2]
Dog fighting dates to at least 43 CE, when the Romans invaded Britain, and both sides brought fighting dogs to the war. The Romans believed the British to have better-trained fighting dogs and began importing (and later exporting) the dogs for war and entertainment wherein the dogs were made to fight against wild animals, including elephants. From the 12th century until the 19th century, dogs were used for baiting chained bears and bulls. In 1835, England outlawed baiting, which then increased the popularity of dog-on-dog fights. [3] [4]
Fighting dogs arrived in the United States in 1817, whereupon Americans crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. The United Kennel Club endorsed the fights and provided referees. Dog fighting was legal in most US states until the 1860s, and it was not completely outlawed in all states until 1976. Today, dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, though the fights thrive in illegal underground venues. [3] [4]
More than 700 cities in 29 states have breed-specific legislation, while 20 states do not allow breed-specific legislation, and one allows no new legislation after 1990, as of Apr. 1, 2020. [1]
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs.
Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching.
**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…
|
# Hockey Fighting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
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.
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.”
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. 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.
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.
**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 the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
The free market should determine minimum wages, not the federal government.
A survey by the Small Business Network found that 82% of small businesses agreed that “the government should not be setting wage rates.” According to Per Bylund, PhD, Research Professor at Baylor University, the federal minimum wage “disrupts the balance of the market and prohibits the creation of new jobs.” Bylund stated that the free market should determine wages based on the value of work produced so employers can hire the needed number of workers at wage levels that make sense for their businesses. According to Mark J. Perry, PhD, of the American Enterprise Institute, government-mandated minimum wages “are always arbitrary and almost never based on any sound economic/cost-benefit analysis… [I]n contrast market-determined wages reflect supply and demand conditions that are specific to local market conditions and vary widely by geographic region and by industry.” Perry said market-determined wages result in more employment opportunities for unskilled workers, increased profits for companies, and lower prices for the consumer.
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
Returning to a gold standard would reduce the US trade deficit.
A trade deficit is when the country is buying more goods and services (imports) than it sells (exports), creating the need for foreign financing that must be repaid when the deficit turns into a surplus (when the country is exporting more than it is importing).
Our current fiat money system allows the Federal Reserve to finance large trade deficits by printing money. Since abandoning the gold standard in 1971, the United States has had the highest trade deficits the world has ever seen – reaching a high of $758 billion in 2006.
As of May 2020, $6.78 trillion of American national debt is owned by foreign creditors. Japan holds the most at $1.26 trillion, followed by China ($1.08 trillion), the United Kingdom ($394 billion), and Luxembourg (262.7 billion), among other countries. US debt held by foreign creditors amounts to about a third of all US debt.
Japan and China want the value of the US dollar to be higher than their own currencies. But, as Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX) noted, “debt of this sort always ends by the currency of the debtor nation decreasing in value. And that’s what has started to happen with the dollar, although it still has a long way to go. Our free lunch cannot last. Printing money, buying foreign products, and selling foreign holders of dollars our debt ends when the foreign holders of this debt become concerned with the dollar’s future value.”
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Defense:
Reagan increased the defense budget for an unprecedented six consecutive years. This spending produced an unsustainable bubble in the defense industry that led to decades of restructuring. By the early 1990s the defense industry had too many factories and too many workers to support with its smaller budgets. For example, in the early 1980s there were 50 large defense suppliers to the US government. By 2004 there were five.
**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 increase economic activity and spur job growth.
The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found “no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.” Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found “little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment.”
**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 Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
The ingredients in vaccines are safe in the amounts used.
Ingredients, such as thimerosal, formaldehyde, and aluminum, can be harmful in large doses but they are not used in harmful quantities in vaccines. Children are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk and infant formula than they are exposed to in vaccines. Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines. With the exception of inactivated flu vaccines, thimerosal (a mercury compound) has been removed or reduced to trace amounts in vaccines for children under 6 years old. The FDA requires up to 10 or more years of testing for all vaccines before they are licensed, and then they are monitored by the CDC and the FDA to make sure the vaccines and the ingredients used in the vaccines are safe.
**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…
|
# Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Cancel culture is a slippery slope and leads to intolerance in democratic societies as people systematically exclude anyone who disagrees with their views.
Loretta Ross, author, deems cancel culture a “cannibalistic maw” that is “[s]ometimes… just ruthless hazing.”
In a July 4, 2020, speech at Mount Rushmore, President Trump stated, “One of (the left’s) political weapons is ‘cancel culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.”
Instead of canceling people, we should be encouraging more people to tell their stories, to add inclusivity and complexity. Connecting cancel culture to the dismantling of historic statues, Christian Sagars, Assistant Voices and Opinion Editor for Deseret News, stated, “Instead, they have come for the opportunistic Columbus and the slave-owning Founding Fathers. They have come for Brigham Young, the eponym of my alma mater and the leader of one of the largest religious migrations in the country’s history. It’s healthy to expose the thorny characters of history’s pages — and there’s a distinction for those who fought against their country and those who built it — but to ignore or eliminate wholesale their contributions to the nation’s foundation is a slippery slope, indeed.”
Cancel culture is also a slippery slope for those doing the calling out as Steven Mintz, Professor Emeritus at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, explained: “Some members of the canceling group join in for fear of being canceled themselves. People should be able to speak out or remain silent on the issues without fear of retribution.” He continues by calling for more tolerance and “willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with and not seek to harm the offender.”
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care could cause people to overuse health care resources.
When people are provided with universal health care and are not directly responsible for the costs of medical services, they may utilize more health resources than necessary, a phenomenon known as “moral hazard.” According to the Brookings Institution, just before Medicaid went into effect in 1964, people living below the poverty line saw physicians 20% less often than those who were not in poverty. But by 1975, people living in poverty who were placed on Medicaid saw physicians 18% more often than people who were not on Medicaid. A study published in Science found that of 10,000 uninsured Portland, Oregon residents who gained access to Medicaid, 40% made more visits to emergency rooms, even though they, like all US residents, already had guaranteed access to emergency treatment under federal law. Since Medicaid provides a right to health care for low-income individuals, expanding this right to the full US population could worsen the problem of overusing health care resources.
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure encourages the careful selection of qualified and effective teachers.
Since it is difficult to remove tenured teachers, tenure encourages school administrators to take more care when making hiring decisions. Additionally, tenure prompts administrators to dismiss under-performing teachers before they achieve tenure and cannot be removed as easily.
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College graduates attract higher-paying employers to their communities.
A 1% increase in college graduates in a community increases the wages of workers without a high school diploma by 1.9% and the wages of high school graduates by 1.6%.
**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…
|
# Dress Codes - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Dress codes bolster religious and cultural intolerance.
Only in 2019 did US Congress change the 1837 rule that banned headwear of any sort, including religious headwear such as kippahs, hijabs, and turbans.
While the United States protects religious expression and cannot ban religious wear as France has banned burqas and hijabs, American dress codes frequently use acceptability standards to less explicitly ban religious garb.
A 5-year-old Native American Texas boy was sent home for a dress code violation because he wore his hair in a long braid according to tribal religious code, which states hair must not be cut except when in mourning. And a Georgia State Representative tried (and failed) to add hijabs, niqabs, and burqas to an existing anti-masking law originally aimed at the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).
Until sued by Tvli Birdshead, then a high school senior and a member of five Native American tribes, the Latta School District in Oklahoma refused to allow Native American regalia on graduation day, which for Birdshead meant a Chickasaw Nation honor cord, a beaded cap, and a sacred eagle feather. Native American Rights Fund has long battled to protect the cultural and religious rights of Native Americans against discriminatory school dress codes.
**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 Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets enable students to cut corners or cheat on schoolwork.
Students can easily avoid reading and analyzing texts on their own because they can quickly look up passages in an e-textbook and search for answers on the internet.
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Taxes:
Through massive tax cuts, Reagan helped restore an economy that had both high inflation and unemployment left over from the 1970s. As he brought taxation down from 70% to 28%, Reagan proved that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, increases economic activity, and boosts tax revenues. Government revenues from income tax rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.
**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 Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Overwhelming scientific consensus finds human activity primarily responsible for climate change.
According to many peer-reviewed studies, over 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is extremely likely to be the cause of global climate change. Most scientific organizations also support this view, including the American Medical Association and an international coalition of science academies.
A prominent review of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found that only 78 studies (0.7%) explicitly rejected the idea of anthropogenic (resulting from human activity) global warming. A separate review of 13,950 peer-reviewed studies on climate change found only 24 that rejected human-caused global warming. An examination of scientific papers that didn’t agree that humans cause climate change found serious flaws and bias in their research.
**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…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media helps senior citizens feel more connected to society.
According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, the 65 and older age group is one of the fastest growing demographic groups on social media sites, with usage rising from 2% of seniors in 2008 to 35% in 2015. Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print.
**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…
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Obesity, like other diseases, impairs the normal functioning of the body.
People who are obese have excess adipose (or fat) tissue that causes the overproduction of leptin (a molecule that regulates food intake and energy expenditure) and other food intake and energy mediators in the body, which leads to abnormal regulation of food intake and energy expenditure. Obesity can impair normal mobility and range of motion in knees and hips, and obese patients make up 33% of all joint replacement operations. Obesity is also linked to reproductive impairment, contributing to sexual dysfunction in both sexes, infertility and risk of miscarriage in women, and lower sperm counts in men.
**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…
|
# Historic Statue Removal - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The statues misrepresent history, and glorify people who perpetuated slavery, attempted secession from United States, and lost the Civil War.
When 11 Southern states seceded from the Union in 1861, they were very clear that the reason was the impending abolition of slavery. Mississippi’s secession declaration states, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization… There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
However, after the Confederate States lost the Civil War, the South revised history. The states declared they had not been fighting to preserve slavery and, instead, “fashioned a set of ideas and arguments that they were fighting to hold back the massive industrialization of America, they were trying to preserve rural agrarian civilization,” according to David W. Blight, PhD, American History Professor at Yale University. The “Lost Cause” mythology was used to continue the idea that black people needed to be subjugated for their own good and as justification for Jim Crow laws. Erecting statues to the lost heroes of the Lost Cause was part of the campaign to revise history.
Other statues of historic figures, such as slave-owning presidents or imperialists like Christopher Columbus, promote similar oppressive and revisionist messages. Glenn Foster, founder of The Freedom Neighborhood, stated of the Emancipation Memorial, which depicts Lincoln over a kneeling freed slave, “When I look at that statue, I’m reminded my freedom and my liberation is only dictated by white peoples’ terms. We’re trying to let the government know we’re not going to wait any longer for our freedom to happen.” Celebrations of Columbus have long been criticized due to his colonization and genocide of Indigenous people, as well as the false narrative that he discovered America when he never set foot on North America. These statues, like their Confederate counterparts, serve a revisionist purpose, allowing people to maintain a racist ideology.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While the debate whether Confederate statues should be taken down has been gaining momentum for years, the issue gained widespread attention after the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter was said to have glorified the Confederate South, posing in Facebook photos with the Battle Flag of the Northern Virginia Army (also known now as the “Confederate flag,” though it never represented the Confederate States) and touring historical Confederate locations before the shooting. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The issue rose to prominence again in 2017 after an Aug. 12 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent and deadly. The rally protested the proposed removal of statues of Confederate Army Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. [5]
The Virginia statues still stood amid the protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, though they were tagged with graffiti then (and later removed on July 10, 2021). During the global Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, calls to take down the statues were met with citizens not only actively damaging or removing statues of Confederate figures, but targeting statues of slave-holding Founding Fathers in general, as well as historic monuments to Abraham Lincoln and abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [54]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 59 Confederate statues and nine markers or plaques were removed from public land in 19 US states between June 17, 2015 and July 6, 2020. The SPLC reported at least 160 monuments were removed in 2020 after George Floyd’s death, more than the prior four years combined At last count, about 704 Confederate monuments remained on public land. [14] [55]
In June 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to remove all confederate statues and bust of Roger B. Taney (the US Supreme Court Chief Justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision) from the US Capitol’s Statuary Hall. Taney’s bust was replaced with one of Thurgood Marshall. On July 13, 2022, Florida erected a statue of Mary McLeod Bethune to replace their confederate soldier statue. Bethune’s is the first state-commissioned statue of a Black person to be included in Statuary Hall. [56]
|
# Should Pit Bulls Be Banned? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
BSL is a distraction from legislation and policies that could actually accomplish safety goals.
According to a study of fatal dog bites between 1979 and 1996, “Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
Best Friends Animal Society explained three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97% of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84% of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78% were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets.
The ASPCA also notes chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks.
Legislating poor animal ownership would be more effective than bans. For example, St. Paul, Minnesota, forbids people who have been cited for animal abuse or neglect two or more times from owning pets.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, enacted a community policing policy that focuses on aggression rather than breed. The city saw a 56% decrease in aggressive incidents and 21% decline in bites in two years.
For these reasons, among others, BSL is opposed by the following organizations: American Bar Association, American Kennel Club, ASPCA, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the CDC, Humane Society, National Animal Control Association, National Canine Research Council, and others.
**Background**
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a “blanket term for laws that regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals,” according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The laws are also called pit bull bans and breed-discriminatory laws. [1]
The legislation frequently covers any dog deemed a “pit bull,” which can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes, though any dog that resembles a pit bull or pit bull mix can be included in the bans. Other dogs are also sometimes regulated, including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as mixes of these breeds or, again, dogs that simply resemble the restricted breeds. [1]
The term “pit bull” refers to a dog with certain characteristics, rather than a specific breed. Generally, the dogs have broad heads and muscular bodies. Pit bulls are targeted because of their history in dog fighting. [2]
Dog fighting dates to at least 43 CE, when the Romans invaded Britain, and both sides brought fighting dogs to the war. The Romans believed the British to have better-trained fighting dogs and began importing (and later exporting) the dogs for war and entertainment wherein the dogs were made to fight against wild animals, including elephants. From the 12th century until the 19th century, dogs were used for baiting chained bears and bulls. In 1835, England outlawed baiting, which then increased the popularity of dog-on-dog fights. [3] [4]
Fighting dogs arrived in the United States in 1817, whereupon Americans crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. The United Kennel Club endorsed the fights and provided referees. Dog fighting was legal in most US states until the 1860s, and it was not completely outlawed in all states until 1976. Today, dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, though the fights thrive in illegal underground venues. [3] [4]
More than 700 cities in 29 states have breed-specific legislation, while 20 states do not allow breed-specific legislation, and one allows no new legislation after 1990, as of Apr. 1, 2020. [1]
|
# Private Prisons - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Private prisons offer innovative programs to lower the rates of re-imprisonment.
Recidivism is the tendency of those who have committed a criminal act to commit another criminal act, likely landing them back in prison.
GEO Group Inc., an American private prison conglomerate, offers individual treatment plans, drug abuse education and treatment, adult education GED preparation, life skills courses, parenting and family reintegration, anger management, and work readiness vocational skills. The programs are offered as in-custody, residential, and non-residential options, allowing people to access the programs while in prison, out on parole or probation, and while reintegrating into their communities.
Rachael Cole, former Public-Private Partnership Integration director for the New Zealand Department of Corrections, argued, “If we want to establish a prison that focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration, we have to give the private sector the space to innovate. If we don’t give them the opportunity to do things differently, we will just get back what we already have.”
A New Zealand prison operated by Serco, a British company, has men make their own meals, do their own laundry, schedule their own family and medical appointments, and maintain a resume to apply for facility jobs. The prison also responds to the job market: opening cafes to train the men as baristas when coffee shop jobs soared outside prison. Another prison in New Zealand includes a cultural center for Maori inmates, designed to reduce recidivism amongst indigenous populations.
Programs that focus on inmate reentry into society and deal with drug and other abuses can lower recidivism rates, which in turn can lower prison populations and lessen overcrowding and related dangers.
**Background**
Prison privatization generally operates in one of three ways: 1. Private companies provide services to a government-owned and managed prison, such as building maintenance, food supplies, or vocational training; 2. Private companies manage government-owned facilities; or 3. Private companies own and operate the prisons and charge the government to house inmates. [1]
In the United States, private prisons have their roots in slavery. Some privately owned prisons held enslaved people while the slave trade continued after the importation of slaves was banned in 1807. Recaptured runaways were also imprisoned in private facilities as were black people who were born free and then illegally captured to be sold into slavery. Many plantations were turned into private prisons from the Civil War forward; for example, the Angola Plantation became the Louisiana State Penitentiary (nicknamed “Angola” for the African homeland of many of the slaves who originally worked on the plantation), the largest maximum-security prison in the country. In 2000, the Vann Plantation in North Carolina was opened as the private, minimal security Rivers Correctional Facility (operated by GEO Group), though the facility’s federal contract expired in Mar. 2021. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Inmates in private prisons in the 19th century were commonly used for labor via “convict leasing” in which the prison owners were paid for the labor of the inmates. According to the Innocence Project, Jim Crow laws after the Civil War ensured the newly freed black population was imprisoned at high rates for petty or nonexistent crimes in order to maintain the labor force needed for picking cotton and other labor previously performed by enslaved people. However, the practice of convict leasing extended beyond the American South. California awarded private management contracts for San Quentin State Prison in order to allow the winning bidder leasing rights to the convicts until 1860. Convict leasing faded in the early 20th century as states banned the practice and shifted to forced farming and other labor on the land of the prisons themselves. [2] [3] [7] [8] [9] [10]
What Americans think of now as a private prison is an institution owned by a conglomerate such as CoreCivic, GEO Group, LaSalle Corrections, or Management and Training Corporation. This sort of private prison began operations in 1984 in Tennessee and 1985 in Texas in response to the rapidly rising prison population during the war on drugs. State-run facilities were overpopulated with increasing numbers of people being convicted for drug offenses. Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) first promised to run larger prisons more cheaply to solve the problems. In 1987, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (now GEO Group) won a federal contract to run an immigration detention center, expanding the focus of private prisons. [11] [12] [13]
In 2016, the federal government announced it would phase out the use of private prisons: a policy rescinded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions under the Trump administration but reinstated under President Biden. However, Biden’s order did not limit the use of private facilities for federal immigrant detention. 20 US states did not use private prisons as of 2019. [11] [12] [14]
In 2019, 115,428 people (8% of the prison population) were incarcerated in state or federal private prisons; 81% of the detained immigrant population (40,634 people) was held in private facilities. The federal government held the most (27,409) people in private prisons in 2019, followed by Texas (12,516), and Florida (11,915). However, Montana held the largest percentage of the state’s inmates in private prisons (47%). [11]
According to the Sentencing Project, “[p]rivate prisons incarcerated 99,754 American residents in 2020, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 14%. [37]
On Jan. 20, 2022, the federal Bureau of Prisons reported 153,855 total federal inmates, 6,336 of whom were held in private facilities, or about 4% of people in federal custody. [36]
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Earning a college degree is a major life achievement.
College graduation can represent an attainment of the American Dream, the culmination of years of hard work for the student, and the payoff for sacrifices made by supporting parents and friends. Blogger Darrius Mind wrote that his graduation day at Wilberforce University was, “probably the best day of my entire life. That was the day I finished my challenge to myself and also the day I made history in my family, it was the day I EARNED my college degree.”
**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 There Really a Santa Claus?'
**Argument**
“Science has long shown that Santa Claus is real, and those who claim otherwise are invariably in the pocket of the big toy companies, who don’t want people thinking they can get free playthings and so will pay for their products.”
Neuroscientist Dean Burnett, PhD, states, “But the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt, and the arguments of the Santa deniers have been repeatedly debunked…
Admittedly, the whole ‘flying reindeer’ thing does seem very far-fetched, and this is a fair accusation. Investigations suggest that the flying reindeer image is a distortion of the truth, in that reindeer are native to the Arctic so Santa may well keep reindeer on his premises and perhaps they did pull his sleigh originally. But there is substantial evidence now to suggest that Santa powers his sled with the energy obtained from a precisely controlled quantum singularity. Basically, Santa has access to a small black hole, which he uses to perform his duties.”
**Background**
Once a year, millions of children around the world eagerly wait for a plump, bearded man dressed in red and white to bring them presents. Known as Santa Claus, his origins are mysterious and his very existence has been disputed. Some people believe that he lives and works in the North Pole, employs a group of elves to manufacture toys, distributes the gifts annually with the aid of flying reindeer, and regularly utters “ho ho ho” in a commanding voice.
But is Santa Claus man or myth? Santa believers argue that he is commonly sighted at shopping malls, that the disappearance of milk and cookies left for him is evidence of his existence, and that, after all, those Christmas gifts have to come from somewhere.
Santa skeptics argue that no one man could deliver presents to millions of households in one night, that his toy factory has never been located in the vicinity of the North Pole, and that Christmas presents are really purchased in secret by parents.
|
# Should College Be Free? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
The US economy and society has benefited from tuition-free college in the past.
Nearly half of all college students in 1947 were military veterans, thanks to President Roosevelt signing the GI Bill in 1944 to ensure military service members, veterans, and their dependents could attend college tuition-free. The GI Bill allowed 2.2 million veterans to earn a college education, and another 5.6 million to receive vocational training, all of which helped expand the middle class. An estimated 40% of those veterans would not have been able to attend college otherwise. GI Bill recipients generated an extra $35.6 billion over 35 years and an extra $12.8 billion in tax revenue, resulting in a return of $6.90 for every dollar spent. [
The beneficiaries of the free tuition contributed to the economy by buying cars and homes, and getting jobs after college, while not being burdened by college debt. They contributed to society with higher levels of volunteering, voting, and charitable giving.
The 1944 GI Bill paid for the educations of 22,000 dentists, 67,000 doctors, 91,000 scientists, 238,000 teachers, 240,000 accountants, 450,000 engineers, three Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist, Stevens, and White), three presidents (Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush), many congressmen, at least one Secretary of State, 14 Nobel Prize winners, at least 24 Pulitzer Prize winners, many entertainers (including Johnny Cash, Paul Newman, and Clint Eastwood), and many more.
During the post-World War II era, the United States ranked first in the world for college graduates, compared to tenth today.
**Background**
Free college programs come in different forms but generally refer to the government picking up the tab for tuition costs, while students pay for other expenses such as room and board. [50]
32 states and DC have some variation of free college programs. 9 states have statewide programs with “few eligibility limits,” while 23 have “[s]tate sponsored free college tuition programs with income, merit, geographical or programmatic limitations.” 18 states have no free college programs. [51] [52]
Tuition at public four-year institutions rose more than 31% between 2010 and 2020. When adjusted for inflation, college tuition has risen 747.8% since 1963. The average student loan debt more than doubled from the 1990s to the 2010s, according to the US Department of Education. About 16.8 million undergraduate students were projected to be enrolled in college in 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. [29] [53] [54]
College tuition is set by state policy or by each individual institution. Some colleges, especially federal land grant schools, had free tuition beginning in the 1860s. And some states had tuition-free policies at state colleges and universities for in-state students well into the twentieth century. According to Ronald Gordon Ehrenberg, Professor at Cornell University, “Public colleges and universities were often free at their founding in the United States, but over time, as public support was reduced or not increased sufficiently to compensate for their growth in students and costs (faculty and staff salaries, utilities etc.), they moved first to a low tuition and eventually higher tuition policy. About 2.9% of American 18- to 24-year olds went to college for the 1909-1910 school year, compared to 40% in 2020. [37] [38] [39] [55]
At the national level, free college programs have been in effect for military personnel since the 1944 GI Bill. At least 26 other countries have free or nearly free college tuition: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Panama, Poland, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay. [7] [8] [9] [42] [43] [44]
According to the 2022 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion, 63% of Americans supported free 4-year college and 66% supported free 2-year college. [56]
|
# Daylight Saving Time Pros and Cons - Top Advantages and Disadvantages'
**Argument**
DST drops productivity.
The Monday after the spring time change is called “Sleepy Monday,” because it is one of the most sleep-deprived days of the year. The week after the spring DST time change sees an increase in “cyber-loafing” (employees wasting time on the internet) because they’re tired.
Dr. Till Roenneberg, a German chronobiologist, who studies the body’s relationship with light and dark, notes that the human circadian clock doesn’t adjust to DST and the “consequence of that is that the majority of the population has drastically decreased productivity, decreased quality of life, increasing susceptibility to illness, and is just plain tired.”
**Background**
In the United States, Daylight Saving Time (DST) began on Sunday, Mar. 13, 2022 at 2am with clocks “springing forward,” and will end on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022, when clocks will “fall back” to Standard Time.
DST was implemented in the United States nationally on Mar. 31, 1918 as a wartime effort to save an hour’s worth of fuel (gas or oil) each day to light lamps and coal to heat homes. It was repealed nationwide in 1919, and then maintained by some individual localities (such as New York City) in what Time Magazine called “a chaos of clocks” until 1966 when the Uniform Time Act made DST consistent nationwide. [8]
DST has been “permanently” implemented nationwide twice, once during World War II and once in the 1970s. As the war ended, only 17% wanted to keep “war time” (DST) year round. In the winter of 1973-1974, DST was used to conserve fuel during the energy crisis. 53% opposed keeping DST, probably because in some parts of the country (primarily western edges of time zones) wouldn’t see the sun rise until after 9am. [39] [40]
63 countries used Daylight Saving Time in 2021, while 9 countries used DST in some jurisdictions and not others (like the United States), and 173 countries did not use DST in 2021. In the United States, 48 states participate in Daylight Saving Time. Arizona, Hawaii, some Amish communities, and the American territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not observe DST. [36] [37] [38]
55% of Americans said they are not disrupted by the time change, 28% report a minor disruption, and 13% said the change is a major disruption. However, 40% of Americans would prefer to stay in Standard Time all year and 31% would prefer to stay in Daylight Saving Time all year, eliminating the time change. 28% of Americans would keep the time change twice a year. [20] [34]
On Mar. 15, 2022, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill that would make DST permanent as of Nov. 20, 2023 if approved by the House and signed by President Biden. The delay is meant to give airlines and other transportation providers time to adjust to the change as they set schedules months ahead of time. [41]
|
# Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?'
**Argument**
Secretive drone strikes amount to extrajudicial assassination and violate human rights.
Drone strikes are secretive, lack sufficient legal oversight, and prevent citizens from holding their leaders accountable. Drone strikes often skip steps taken by boots on the ground approaches. The Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School explains, “While interrogation and detention, as recent history shows all too well, carry their own risks of human rights abuses, these non-lethal approaches at least provide the opportunity for an assessment of whether targeted individuals in fact pose a threat to U.S. interests—an opportunity taken off the table by drone strikes.”
The United States frequently calls drone strikes “targeted killings,” a term that does not have a definition in international law. Charli Carpenter, PhD, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explained, “The term was originally coined by a human rights organization to distinguish El Salvador death squads’ assassination of individuals from the squads’ wider indiscriminate killings of civilians. Both acts, Americas Watch correctly argued, violated human rights standards as well as the international laws surrounding war.” Thus, “targeted killings” are, Carpenter explained, “the extrajudicial execution of nonstate political adversaries,” or political assassination, which is “taboo in war,” banned by the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1998 Rome Statute, and is a “violation of the human right to life enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
UN Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions Agnès Callamard tweeted in response to a Jan. 2020 drone strike, “The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu mahdi al muhandi most likely violate international law incl human rights law. Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.”
The strikes are expecially problematic outside of declared war, when even terrorists must be arrested, tried, and convicted of a capital crime before being killed.
**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.
|
# DC & Puerto Rico Statehood - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Puerto Rico was never intended to be a US state.
The United States occupied Puerto Rico in 1898, taking the island from the Spanish to ensure a strong military presence in the Caribbean and access to a canal through Panama, not to add a state to the union.
After the US ended military occupation of the island, the Foraker Act, signed on Apr. 12, 1900, by President McKinley, established Puerto Rico as an “unorganized territory.” Though the act did not confer citizenship, several senators, including John C. Spooner (R-WI), believed the legislation gave false promises. Spooner stated, “I am not yet ready, nor are we called upon now, to give that quasi pledge of statehood, or to imply that they will ever reach a condition where it shall be either for their interests, or certainly for ours, to let them be one of the members of this Union.”
In Downes v. Bidwell (1901), the US Supreme Court designated Puerto Rico as a nonincorporated territory, one that does not enjoy the protections of the US Constitution and whose people are not US citizens.
While Puerto Ricans have since been granted citizenship and constitutional protections, the island was never meant to be a US state.
**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 United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals, and Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States.
Feb. 7, 2012 marked the 50th anniversary of the embargo, and the goal of forcing Cuba to adopt a representative democracy still has not been achieved.
Cuba’s relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War raised concerns about US national security, but that era is long over. The USSR dissolved in 1991, and American foreign policy has adapted to the change in most aspects apart from the embargo. The US Defense Intelligence Agency released a report in 1998 stating “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.” The embargo can no longer be justified by the fear of Communism spreading throughout the Western Hemisphere.
Fidel Castro resigned his presidency in 2008, and abdicated his role as the leader of Cuba’s communist party in 2011 due to illness. His brother Raúl then stepped in to take his place and, in Apr. 2019, Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel, a close Castro ally, was selected as President.
If over 50 years of sanctions have not toppled the Castro regime, there is no reason to think the embargo will ever work.
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Student loan discharge via bankruptcy would allow borrowers to abuse the loan system and encourage colleges to increase tuition.
Making it easier to discharge loans would give people an incentive to take out loans with no intention of paying them back, or to borrow more than they need. Which, in turn, could cause them to seek bankruptcy without fully realizing the negative long-term consequences on their credit scores and other aspects of their lives.
New college graduates rarely have significant assets to surrender in bankruptcy, so they have less incentive to avoid bankruptcy.
Student debt elimination through bankruptcy would encourage increased borrowing, and more borrowing leads to higher tuition. Abigail Hall Blanco, Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Tampa, said, “loan forgiveness would be one giant subsidy, creating perverse incentives for both schools and students. If schools knew the government would forgive the cost of their students’ education, they’d face no incentive to cut costs to keep tuition down.”
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides.
Lithuania has one of the world’s lowest gun ownership rates (0.7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45.06 per 100,000 people in 1999, the highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0.6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18.41 suicides per 100,000 people in 1997 (ranking it 11 out of 71 countries). South Korea has a low gun ownership rate (1.1 guns per 100 people) but has a high rate of suicide and the highest rate of gun suicides (12.63 per 100,000 people in 1997). By contrast the United States has the 26th highest suicide rate (12.3 suicides per 100,000 people in 2011) and the highest gun ownership rate (88.8 guns per 100 people). Jim Barrett, author for TheTruthAboutGuns.com, stated, “the theory that the restriction or elimination of guns would have a positive effect on the overall suicide rate in the U.S. does not hold up under scrutiny.”
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws.
Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, gun rights activist, stated, “The problem with such [gun control] laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them.” According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics May 2013 report, 37.4% of state prison inmates who “used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence” obtained the gun from a family member or friend. Despite Chicago’s ban on gun shops, shooting ranges, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, in 2014 Chicago had 2,089 shooting victims including at least 390 murders. Approximately 50,000 guns were recovered by police in Chicago between 2001 and Mar. 2012. The guns came from all 50 states, and more than half came from outside of Illinois.
**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…
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
School vouchers offer students in failing schools access to a better education.
Parents who cannot afford homes in neighborhoods with great school districts are often doomed to send their kids to bad schools with less funding, fewer good teachers, and fewer opportunities for students to excel.
The DC voucher program, the only federally-funded school voucher program in the country, increased students’ graduation rates by 21% overall and 28% for female voucher students. Parents of DC voucher recipients reported high levels of satisfaction, felt the school was safer than their public school option, and were more likely to give the school an A or B grade.
EdChoice, an education nonprofit, stated, “The empirical evidence shows that choice improves academic outcomes for participants and public schools… and strengthens the shared civic values and practices essential to American democracy.”
**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]
|
# Net Neutrality - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
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.”
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.
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.”
**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}
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.
There were 572,537 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2016: 336,579 suicides (58.8% of total gun deaths); 213,175 homicides (37.2%); and 11,428 unintentional deaths (2.0%). [ Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (67.7% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.8% of all suicides). A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that firearms were the second leading cause of deaths for children, responsible for 15% of child deaths compared to 20% in motor vehicle crashes. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death” According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%. Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.
**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…
|
# Electoral College Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
The Electoral College was created to protect the voices of the minority from being overwhelmed by the will of the majority.
The Founding Fathers wanted to balance the will of the populace against the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests.
Using electors instead of the popular vote was intended to safeguard the presidential election against uninformed or uneducated voters by putting the final decision in the hands of electors who were most likely to possess the information necessary to make the best decision in a time when news was not widely disseminated.
The Electoral College was also intended to prevent states with larger populations from having undue influence, and to compromise between electing the president by popular vote and letting Congress choose the president.
According to Alexander Hamilton, the Electoral College is if “not perfect, it is at least excellent,” because it ensured “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
Democratic Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak vetoed a measure in 2019 that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would have obligated the state’s electors to vote for the popular vote winner. Governor Sisolak stated, the compact “could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”
Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner for the FEC, explained, “The Framers’ fears of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ is still very relevant today. One can see its importance in the fact that despite Hillary Clinton’s national popular vote total, she won only about a sixth of the counties nationwide, with her support limited mostly to urban areas on both coasts.”
**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]
|
# Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?'
**Argument**
Drone strikes are carried out with the collaboration and encouragement of local governments, and make those countries safer.
US drone strikes help countries fight terrorist threats to their own domestic peace and stability, including al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, al-Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Qaeda in the Maghreb in Algeria and Mali.
On Aug. 21, 2020, for example, acting in cooperation with the Somali National Army, a US drone strike killed a “high-ranking” al-Shabab bomb and IED maker.
Yemen’s President, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, has openly praised drone strikes in his country, stating that the “electronic brain’s precision is unmatched by the human brain.”
In a 2008 State Department cable made public by Wikileaks, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani asked US officials for more drone strikes, and in Apr. 2013 former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf acknowledged to CNN that his government had secretly signed off on US drone strikes. In Pakistan, where the vast majority of drone strikes are carried out, drones contributed to a major decrease in violence. The 41 suicide attacks in Pakistan in 2011 were down from a record high of 87 in 2009, which coincided with an over ten-fold increase in the number of drone strikes.
After the Jan. 2020 strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Soleimani in Iran, President Donald Trump stated, “Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years… Just recently, Soleimani led the brutal repression of protestors in Iran, where more than a thousand innocent civilians were tortured and killed by their own government… The future belongs to the people of Iran — those who seek peaceful coexistence and cooperation — not the terrorist warlords who plunder their nation to finance bloodshed abroad.”
**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 Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
The pharmaceutical companies, FDA, and CDC should not be trusted to make and regulate safe vaccines.
The primary goal of pharmaceutical companies is to sell drugs and make a profit. William Posey, Congressman (R-FL), stated in an Apr. 8, 2014 interview, “The incestuous relationship between the public health community and the vaccine makers and government officials should not be allowed to continue. I mean, you know, too many top CDC personnel go to work for the vaccine makers when they leave. That’s a revolving door that creates a serious conflict of interest and perverts incentives that compromise integrity.” Julie Gerberding, President of Merck Vaccines, was the CDC director from 2002-2009. A vaccine for Lyme disease, LYMErix, was licensed by the FDA and marketed for almost four years before being pulled from the market after several class action lawsuits were filed due to a potential causal relationship to autoimmune arthritis. Rotashield, a vaccine for rotavirus (RV), was pulled from the market by the manufacturer nine months after it was introduced after it was discovered that the vaccine might have contributed to higher instances of intussusception (bowel obstruction).
**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 Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Privatizing Social Security would dramatically increase the national debt.
Transitioning to private accounts while continuing to provide benefits to current Social Security beneficiaries would leave a multi-trillion dollar hole that would need to be filled by more government spending. According to Bloomberg Business, President Bush’s plan would have required “Washington to borrow at least $160 billion a year in the early years,” increasing the nation’s debt by 40%.
MIT economist Peter A. Diamond, PhD, estimated that the costs incurred during the transfer to private accounts would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the country’s national debt, which “could trigger an economic crisis.”
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Increasing the federal minimum wage would disproportionately harm the poorest areas of the United States.
In 2015 Mississippi had the lowest cost of living at 83.5% of the national average, while Hawaii had the highest at 168.6%. In areas like Mississippi where the cost of living and average incomes are especially low, employers would need to spend proportionally more to pay their minimum wage employees than employers in higher cost areas like Hawaii, and yet would be unable to cover the cost by raising prices because their customers would not be able to afford them. According to Andrew G. Biggs, PhD, and Mark J. Perry, PhD, of the American Enterprise Institute, the results of this disparity “could be disastrous… [for] small communities around the country.”
**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…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College graduates have lower poverty rates.
The 2008 poverty rate for bachelor’s degree holders was 4%, compared to a 12% poverty rate for high school graduates. In 2005, married couples with bachelor’s degrees were least likely to be below the poverty line (1.8%) compared to 2.7% of associate’s degree holders, 4.6% of couples with some college, and 7.1% of high school graduates. According to the US Census Bureau, 1% of college graduates participated in social support programs like Medicaid, National School Lunch Program, and food stamps compared to 8% of high school graduates in 2008.
**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 Golf a Sport?'
**Argument**
Golf meets the definition of sport by being competitive.
“Golf is a sport. Many people enjoy it on a solely social level and that’s fine. But, first and foremost, it’s a sport where players compete against the course and each other, trying to better previous performances or outplay an opponent,” according to Fergus Bisset, Contributing Editor of Golf Monthly.
Golf tournaments such as the four Majors and British Open can be some of the most difficult in all sports to win. Golfers are not only playing against their opponents, but themselves, the golf course itself and external conditions including the weather. Padraig Harrington, who won multiple Majors, stated, “The test is there for all golfers, all across time… It’s what we all want to measure our careers.”
Golf can be competitive when playing socially and when not playing in a tournament. A post at GolfGurls.com, stated: “Still, I don’t think of golf as your usual competitive sport. At least not for me. When I play a round of golf my focus is seldom on beating the other players. I actually pay very little attention to anyone’s score but my own. My competition is with my own game: with how I am playing today compared with how I have played yesterday, or the day before. I am always competing with myself: one hole at a time, one round at a time. I am always trying to best my past record, lower my handicap and increase my ability.”
**Background**
Golf in the United States is a $70 billion annual industry with 24.1 million players. A 2016 poll by Public Policy Polling found that nineteen percent of Americans call themselves golf fans, down from twenty-three percent in 2015. The debate over whether golf is a sport rages on the internet, in bars, amongst sportswriters, and even on the golf course. Read more background…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms may improve attendance and discipline.
A study by researchers at the University of Houston found that the average absence rate for girls in middle and high school decreased by 7% after the introduction of uniforms, and behavioral problems lessened in severity. A Youngstown State University study of secondary schools in Ohio’s eight largest school districts found that school uniform policies improve rates of attendance, graduation, and suspension.
During the first semester of a mandatory uniform program at John Adams Middle School in Albuquerque, NM, discipline referrals dropped from 1,565 during the first semester of the year prior to 405, a 74% decrease. Macquarie University (Australia) researchers found that in schools across the world where uniform policies are enforced, students “are more disciplined” and “listen significantly better, there are lower noise levels, and lower teaching waiting times with classes starting on time.”
**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…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
Students can express their individuality in school uniforms by introducing variations and adding accessories.
Junior high school student Amelia Jimenez wrote in her op-ed for the Pennsylvania Patriot-News website that “contrary to popular belief, uniforms do not stop students from being themselves. Uniforms do not silence voices. Students can wear a variety of expressive items, such as buttons or jewlery.” Students can inject their personal style into their daily look with hairstyles, nail polish, and colorful accessories such as bags, scarfs, and fun socks. A peer-reviewed study found that 54% of eighth-graders said they could still express their individuality while wearing school uniforms.
**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…
|
# Banned Books Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when.
Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents’ ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material. “Literary works containing explicit sex, oral sex, explicit & violent descriptions of rape, masturbation, vulgar and obscene language” were on the approved reading list for grades 7-12, according to Speak up for Standards, a group seeking age-appropriate reading materials for students in Dallas, Texas.
If books with inappropriate material are available in libraries, children or teens can be exposed to books their parents wouldn’t approve of before the parents even find out what their children are reading.
Bans are necessary because “opting your child out of reading [a certain] book doesn’t protect him or her. They are still surrounded by the other students who are going to be saturated with this book,” said writer Macey France.
**Background**
The American Library Association (ALA) has tracked book challenges, which are attempts to remove or restrict materials, since 1990. In 2020, the ALA recorded 156 reported book challenges in the United States, a significant decrease from the 377 reported challenges in 2019 perhaps due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, challenges jumped to an all-time high in 2021 with 729 challenges, containing a total of 1,597 books. [22] [27] [28]
In most years, about 10% of the reported challenges result in removal or ban from the school or library. However, in 2016, five of the top ten most challenged books were removed. The ALA estimates that only about 3% to 18% of challenges are reported to its Office for Intellectual Freedom, meaning that the actual number of attempts to ban books is likely much higher. [1] [24]
In 2021, challenges were most frequently brought by parents (39%), followed by patrons (24%), a board or administration (18%), librarians or teachers (6%), elected officials (2%), and students (1%). Books were most often challenged at school libraries (44%), public libraries (37%), schools (18%), and academic libraries (1%). [30]
Sexually explicit content, offensive language, and “unsuited to any age group” are the top three reasons cited for requesting a book be removed. The percentage of Americans who thought any books should be banned increased from 18% in 2011 to 28% in 2015, and 60% of people surveyed believed that children should not have access to books containing explicit language in school libraries, according to The Harris Poll. A 2022 poll found 71% disagreed with efforts to have books removed, including 75% of Democrats, 58% of independents, and 70% of Republicans. [1] [3] [28]
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation.
The late Rev. Dean M. Kelley, a leading proponent of religious freedom, explained that church members are already taxed on their individual incomes, so “to tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be ‘double taxation’ indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the up building of the fabric of democracy.”
**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…
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care could increase the wait time for medical services.
Medicaid is an example of a federally funded single-payer health care system that provides a right to health care for low-income people. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, 9.4% of Medicaid beneficiaries have had trouble obtaining necessary care due to long wait times, versus 4.2% of people with private health insurance. Countries with a universal right to health care have longer wait times than in the United States. In the average wait time to see a specialist in Canada was 60 days, versus 24 days in the United States. In the United States, only 25% of patients had to wait at least four weeks to see a specialist compared to 59% in Canada, 56% in Norway, and 43% in the United Kingdom – all countries that have some form of a universal right to health care.
**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 People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
Eating meat is natural, not cruel or unethical.
Vegetarians mistakenly elevate the value of animal life over plant life. Research shows that plants also respond electrochemically to threats. Every organism on earth dies at some point so others organisms can live. There is nothing wrong with this cycle.
Further, there is a growing movement to raise “cruelty-free” organic meat. In the United States, animals raised for certified organic meat must be given access to the outdoors, clean air, and water. They cannot be given growth hormones or antibiotics and must be fed organically grown feed free of animal byproducts. According to a 2007 report from the Range Improvement Task Force, organic meat accounted for 3% of total US meat production. [84] By the end of 2012 “natural and organic” beef accounted for 4% of total beef sales in the United States. And, in 2019, 76% of consumers thought that grocery stores should sell meat and poultry raised and slaughtered with good animal welfare standards.
US slaughterhouses must conform to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) that mandates that livestock be stunned unconscious before slaughter. Many of the largest US meat producers also adhere to the handling standards developed by Dr. Temple Grandin that factor in animal psychology to design transportation devices, stockyards, loading ramps, and restraining systems that minimize stress and calm animals as they are led to slaughter.
**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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Foreign Policy:
A year after 18 American troops were killed in a failed 1993 mission to capture a warlord in Somalia, Clinton was hesitant to take action to stop a genocide in Rwanda. While he failed to act, more than half a million Tutsis were murdered. Critics accused Clinton of appeasement when he gave China Most Favored Nation (MFN) status despite their terrible human rights record and when he granted North Korea concessions in exchange for a promise to discontinue their nuclear weapons program.
**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 Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets contain many technological features that cannot be found in print textbooks.
Tablets give users the ability to highlight and edit text and write notes without ruining a textbook for the next user. Tablets have a search function, a backlighting option to read in low light, and a built-in dictionary. Interactive diagrams and videos increase student creativity, motivation, attentiveness, and engagement with classroom materials.
**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 Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
With private personal accounts, retirees can see higher returns on their investment and more money in their pockets.
The year-over-year growth rate for private investments (6.38% average real returns on investments in the S&P 500 between 1984-2014) was much higher than the return gained by retired workers in the current Social Security program (between 2.67% and 3.91% return on the contributions made by a medium income, two-earner couple as of Dec. 2014).
Martin Feldstein, PhD. Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Reagan presidency, said that with a private account earning a modest 5.5% real rate of return, “someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit.”
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Should Pit Bulls Be Banned? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
BSL makes communities safer.
One goal of BSL is to prevent dog attacks on humans, dogs, and other animals before they happen.
According to DogsBite.org, enacting BSL “regulate[s] a small group of breeds that have a genetic propensity to attack and inflict severe, disfiguring injuries so that first attacks by these breeds can be averted. First attacks by pit bulls, for instance, almost always result in severe injury. In some cases, the first bite by a pit bull or [R]ottweiler is fatal.”
Data collected by DogsBite.org shows at least 433 deaths due to dog bites between Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2017. Of those deaths, 284 were attributed to pit bulls, 45 to Rottweilers, 20 to German Shepherds, 15 to American Bulldogs, and 14 to Mastiffs, all frequently banned breeds.
Prior to BSL enactment in Prince George’s County, Maryland, there were 853 dog bites reported (108 from pit bulls) in 1996. 14 years into the ban (2010), overall dog bites had decreased 43% and pit bull bites were down 35%.
In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, BSL was overturned by a judge in 2013, resulting in a tenfold increase in pit bull attacks between 2013 and 2019.
**Background**
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a “blanket term for laws that regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals,” according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The laws are also called pit bull bans and breed-discriminatory laws. [1]
The legislation frequently covers any dog deemed a “pit bull,” which can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes, though any dog that resembles a pit bull or pit bull mix can be included in the bans. Other dogs are also sometimes regulated, including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as mixes of these breeds or, again, dogs that simply resemble the restricted breeds. [1]
The term “pit bull” refers to a dog with certain characteristics, rather than a specific breed. Generally, the dogs have broad heads and muscular bodies. Pit bulls are targeted because of their history in dog fighting. [2]
Dog fighting dates to at least 43 CE, when the Romans invaded Britain, and both sides brought fighting dogs to the war. The Romans believed the British to have better-trained fighting dogs and began importing (and later exporting) the dogs for war and entertainment wherein the dogs were made to fight against wild animals, including elephants. From the 12th century until the 19th century, dogs were used for baiting chained bears and bulls. In 1835, England outlawed baiting, which then increased the popularity of dog-on-dog fights. [3] [4]
Fighting dogs arrived in the United States in 1817, whereupon Americans crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. The United Kennel Club endorsed the fights and provided referees. Dog fighting was legal in most US states until the 1860s, and it was not completely outlawed in all states until 1976. Today, dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, though the fights thrive in illegal underground venues. [3] [4]
More than 700 cities in 29 states have breed-specific legislation, while 20 states do not allow breed-specific legislation, and one allows no new legislation after 1990, as of Apr. 1, 2020. [1]
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.
57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would “give too much power to the government over the people.” The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre stated, “if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.” Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting, it’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!”
**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…
|
# Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?'
**Argument**
Standardized tests scores are good indicators of college and job success.
Standardized tests can offer evidence of and promote academic rigor, which is invaluable in college as well as in students’ careers. Matthew Pietrafetta, PhD, Founder of Academic Approach, argues that the “tests create gravitational pull toward higher achievement.”
Elaine Riordan, senior communications professional at Actively Learn, stated, “[C]onsiderable research suggests that interventions that help students improve test scores are linked to better adult outcomes such as college attendance, higher incomes, and the avoidance of risky behaviors… In other words, creating learning environments that lead to higher test scores is also likely to improve students’ long-term success in college and beyond… Recent research suggests that the competencies that the SAT, ACT, and other standardized tests are now evaluating are essential not just for students who will attend four-year colleges but also for those who participate in CTE programs or choose to seek employment requiring associate degrees and certificates. The researchers argue that all of these students require the same level of academic mastery to be successful after high school graduation.”
Standardized test scores have long been correlated with better college and life outcomes. As Dan Goldhaber, PhD, Director of the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, and Umut Özek, PhD, senior researcher at the American Institutes for Research, summarize, “students who score one standard deviation higher on math tests at the end of high school have been shown to earn 12% more annually, or $3,600 for each year of work life in 2001… Similarly… test scores are significantly correlated not only with educational attainment and labor market outcomes (employment, work experience, choice of occupation), but also with risky behavior (teenage pregnancy, smoking, participation in illegal activities).”
**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…
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects.
According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a “small possibility” exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. .
**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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Taxing churches would place government above religion.
The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked “will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all.”
**Background**
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media harms employees’ productivity.
A global online survey found that 50% of workers check or use social media at least once a day during work hours. A survey of Irish workers found that 78% use a personal device to access social media at work. Two-thirds of US workers with Facebook accounts access the site during work hours. Even spending just 30 minutes a day on social media while at work would cost a 50-person company 6,500 hours of productivity a year. A Pew Research Center study found that 56% of workers who use social media for work-related purposes think it distracts them from the work they need to do.
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws would reduce the societal costs associated with gun violence.
The more than 100,000 people shot in the United States each year generate emergency room and hospital charges of nearly $3 billion. A study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries cost Medicaid and Medicare $2.7 billion over nine years. A study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries cost Medicaid and Medicare $2.7 billion over nine years. 84% of those injured by firearms are uninsured, leaving taxpayers responsible for most of those bills through programs like Medicaid. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the costs of gun violence can include legal services, medical costs, perpetrator control, policing, incarceration, foster care, private security, lost earnings and time, life insurance, productivity, tourism, and psychological costs (pain and suffering), among others. Homicide rates doubling has been associated with a 12.5% decline in property values.
**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 Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Earth’s climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years.
Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4°F over the 20th century, it is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years. A study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found that “many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.”
A study published in Nature found that “high temperatures – similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 – occurred around AD 1000 to 1100” in the Northern Hemisphere. A study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were “consistently higher” than temperatures during the 20th century.
**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…
|
# Mandatory National Service - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Mandating national service violates the constitution and would infringe on the freedom to choose what to do with our lives.
The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”
While the government has the authority to “raise and support Armies,” there is no constitutional basis for compelling citizens to perform public service.
Doug Bandow, JD, lawyer and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, says, “Mandatory universal national service, at least if legally required and backed by civil or criminal penalties, would fit the definition of involuntary servitude.”
Stuart Anderson, Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, stated, “Since people are now free to live and work where they want, one presumes participation in a National Service Program would be mandatory under the threat of a prison sentence… a National Service Program that takes two years out of the lives of young people (or others) contravenes the most important part of America, what has drawn people to its shores for centuries – individual liberty.”
**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]
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College graduates make more money.
The average college graduate makes $570,000 more than the average high school graduate over a lifetime. Career earnings for college graduates are 71% to 136% higher than those of high school graduates. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York calculated a 14% rate of return on a bachelor’s degree, which constitutes a good investment. College graduates earn an average of $78,000, a 75% wage premium over the average $45,000 annual earnings for workers with only a high school diploma. 85% of Forbes’ America’s 400 Richest People list were college grads.
**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 Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Gay marriage has accelerated the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the homosexual community.
The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist.
Lesbian activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists “marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture.” [14]
Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women’s Studies, wrote in 1989, “Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” [15]
**Background**
This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future.
On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.
Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.
Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…
|
# DACA & the DREAM Act - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Deporting Dreamers is inhumane and cruel.
Arriving at a median age of six years old, many Dreamers do not remember life in their birth countries, have not met family members in those countries, and do not speak the native language fluently.
President Barack Obama, responding to President Donald Trump’s plan to end DACA, stated, “To target these young people is wrong… It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?”
Many DACA recipients are well-integrated into families, communities, schools, and workplaces throughout the country.
Thiru Vignarajah, former Deputy Attorney of Maryland, stated, “to deport immigrants raised in America since they were children for the supposed sins of their parents is the definition of cruel and unusual punishment — expelling a person to a country they do not know because of a decision they did not make is as spiteful as it is bizarre.”
**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.
|
# Defunding the Police Pros and Cons | Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Police departments should not be disbanded, but held to standardized national regulations, which should comply with international human rights laws.
President Obama formed the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing after the Aug. 2014 police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The May 2015 final report suggested that the Department of Justice should “[e]stablish national benchmarks and best practices for federal, state, local, and tribal police departments,” among 58 other nationally standardized requirements.
The Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) suggests many federal reforms, including ending the transfer of military equipment to police departments, a national comprehensive policy on use-of-force, a law banning lethal force, a requirement that police departments acknowledge their racial inequalities and injustices, mandatory racial biases training, and eliminating qualified immunity, which protects officers from being sued for wrongful death. EJI states these reforms can help to “change the culture of policing to build trust, legitimacy, and accountability.”
Ed Pilkington, Chief Reporter for The Guardian US, stated, “The need for restrictions on police power has been recognized in international law for 40 years. Two basic human rights are involved: the right to life and personal security, and the right of freedom from discrimination. Those rights have also been enshrined in core United Nations standards. All 193 member nations of the UN, including the US, have signed up to a code of conduct for law enforcement officials adopted in 1979.”
A review of police departments in 20 of the largest American cities in 2017 and 2018 found that “not one met the minimum standards established by human rights law.” No state had a human rights compliant use-of-force law, only 12 cities had policies restricting use-of-force to an immediate threat, and only two cities, Los Angeles and Chicago, had the necessary external reporting requirements to meet international human rights standards.
Data compiled by The Guardian found that 59 people in the US were shot and killed by police in the first 24 days of 2015, compared to 55 people fatally shot by police in England and Wales in the past 24 years. 97 people in the US were fatally shot by police in Mar. 2015, compared to 94 in Australia between 1992 and 2011.
Police in other countries do not routinely carry guns, choke-holds are banned, and use-of-force policies are stricter than in the United States. In Finland, an officer must get supervisor approval before using deadly force and, in Spain, officers must fire a warning shot or shoot a non-vital body part before using lethal force. Officers in Europe train for an average of three years, compared to about 19 months for Americans. These policies result in fewer citizen deaths in those countries.
**Background**
Amid the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, calls to “defund the police” began to populate protest signs and social media posts.
While there are multiple interpretations of “defund the police,” the basic definition is to move funding away from police departments and into community resources such as mental health experts, housing, and social workers. In the larger scope of the civil rights movement, some advocates would reallocate some police funding but keep police departments, others would combine defunding with other police reforms such as body cameras and bias training, and others see defunding as a small step toward ultimately abolishing police departments and the prison system entirely. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
According to the most recent data available, police departments received about $114.5 billion nationwide in 2017 from state and local governments, up from $42.3 billion in 1977. Police budgets have made up around 4% of total state and local budgets since 1977. About 97% of police budgets go toward operational costs such as salaries and benefits. However, individual cities or counties may allocate more funds to police departments. The 2017 Los Angeles city budget, for example, provided 23% of the budget to police, while 9% of Los Angeles county’s budget went to policing. [7] [8] [9]
In June 2020, 64% of Americans opposed the abstract idea of defunding the police, while 34% supported the movement. 60% were against reallocating police budget funds to other public health and social programs, while 39% were in favor. [10]
In Oct. 2021, 21% of American adults wanted police budgets “increased a lot” and 26% wanted budgets “increased a little,” while 9% wanted police budgets “decreased a little” and 6% “decreased a lot.” 37% said budgets should “stay about the same.” [58]
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
The “parsonage exemption” on ministers’ homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers’ expense.
The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage.
**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…
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Tax dollars are intended for the better secular education of all children, not the private religious education of a few.
Using public funds to subsidize religious schools violates the separation of church and state. Of the 14 states with school voucher programs, 11 allow vouchers to be used at religious schools (Maine and Vermont do not).
According to an EdChoice survey of parents who use vouchers, the number one reason parents chose to use vouchers was “religious environment/instruction.”
An estimated 85% of Milwaukee voucher students attended religious schools, with each Catholic school that accepted voucher students getting about $1 million in taxpayer dollars. [
**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]
|
# Police Body Cameras - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Police body cameras are a good police reform tool and have strong support from members of the public.
Police body worn cameras offer transparency and accountability to the public, which is an attempt to “mend that frayed relationship between the police and the community,” according to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, JD.
Video recorded from police body cameras can be used to train new and existing officers in how to perform during difficult encounters with the public. The Miami Police Department has been using body cameras for training since 2012. Former Police Major Ian Moffitt, MS, stated, “we can record a situation, a scenario in training, and then go back and look at it and show the student, the recruit, the officer what they did good, what they did bad, and [what they can] improve on.”
Amid the Black Lives Matter protests after the death of George Floyd, a June 2020 Reuters/Ipsos poll found 92% of Americans wanted federal police officers to wear body cams. A July 2020 University of Maryland School of Public Policy survey found 90% support for all police officers being required to wear body cameras, including 85% of republicans, 86% of independents, and 94% of democrats.
**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]
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Economy:
The US went from having the largest budget deficit in American history ($290 billion) in 1992 when Clinton was elected to having a budget surplus of $127 billion when he left office in 2001. 22.5 million new jobs were created and unemployment dropped from 7.5% when Clinton took office to 4.0% by the end of his second term, the lowest in 30 years. The poverty rate dropped to 11.8% in 1999, which was the lowest it had been since 1979.
**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…
|
# Banned Books Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Parents may control what their own children read, but don't have a right to restrict what books are available to other people.
Parents who don’t like specific books can have their kids opt out of an assignment without infringing on the rights of others.
The National Coalition against Censorship explained that “Even books or materials that many find ‘objectionable’ may have educational value, and the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, not individual preferences.”
In the 1982 Supreme Court ruling on Board of Education v. Pico, Justice William Brennan wrote that taking books off of library shelves could violate students’ First Amendment rights, adding that “Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”
**Background**
The American Library Association (ALA) has tracked book challenges, which are attempts to remove or restrict materials, since 1990. In 2020, the ALA recorded 156 reported book challenges in the United States, a significant decrease from the 377 reported challenges in 2019 perhaps due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, challenges jumped to an all-time high in 2021 with 729 challenges, containing a total of 1,597 books. [22] [27] [28]
In most years, about 10% of the reported challenges result in removal or ban from the school or library. However, in 2016, five of the top ten most challenged books were removed. The ALA estimates that only about 3% to 18% of challenges are reported to its Office for Intellectual Freedom, meaning that the actual number of attempts to ban books is likely much higher. [1] [24]
In 2021, challenges were most frequently brought by parents (39%), followed by patrons (24%), a board or administration (18%), librarians or teachers (6%), elected officials (2%), and students (1%). Books were most often challenged at school libraries (44%), public libraries (37%), schools (18%), and academic libraries (1%). [30]
Sexually explicit content, offensive language, and “unsuited to any age group” are the top three reasons cited for requesting a book be removed. The percentage of Americans who thought any books should be banned increased from 18% in 2011 to 28% in 2015, and 60% of people surveyed believed that children should not have access to books containing explicit language in school libraries, according to The Harris Poll. A 2022 poll found 71% disagreed with efforts to have books removed, including 75% of Democrats, 58% of independents, and 70% of Republicans. [1] [3] [28]
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Dramatic changes in precipitation, such as heavier storms and less snow, are another sign that humans are causing global climate change.
As human-produced greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas. In a process known as a positive feedback loop, more warming causes more humidity which causes even more warming. Higher humidity levels also cause changes in precipitation. According to a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the recorded changes in precipitation over land and oceans “are unlikely to arise purely due to natural climate variability.”
According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western United States (1950-1999) were human-induced. Since 1991, heavy precipitation events have been 30% above the 1901-1960 average in the Northeast, Midwest, and upper Great Plains regions. A study found that global warming caused by human actions has increased extreme precipitation events by 18% across the globe, and that if temperatures continue to rise an increase of 40% can be expected.
**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…
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
The acidity levels of the oceans are within past natural levels and the current rise in acidity is a natural fluctuation.
The pH of average ocean surface water is 8.1 and has only decreased 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial revolution (neutral is pH 7, acid is below pH 7). Science published a study of ocean acidity levels over the past 15 million years, finding that the “samples record surface seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today.”
Increased atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the oceans results in higher rates of photosynthesis and faster growth of ocean plants and phytoplankton, which increases pH levels keeping the water alkaline, not acidic. According to the Science and Public Policy Institute, “our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the 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…
|
# Filibuster - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The filibuster promotes obstructionism and partisanship, allowing the minority party to rule without a national mandate.
The 117th Senate (2021–2023) is composed of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, making the Senate split evenly in terms of broad politics. The tiebreaker is Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat.
However, the 50 liberal senators represent 41.5 million more Americans than the 50 conservative senators.
Because ending a filibuster requires a 60-senator majority vote, just 41 conservative senators (the number of senators needed to protect a filibuster) in the 117th Senate who represent just over 20% of the American population can kill any and all legislation brought by the party voted in to control the Senate, House, and White House.
One estimate predicts that by 2040, about 30% of the American population will live in 35 states represented by 70 senators, while about 70% of the population will live in 15 states represented by 30 senators. That 30% will be older, less racially diverse, and more rural than the majority of the country. Therefore, the possibility of a stark minority of senators filibustering and killing legislation supported by the majority of the country only stands to grow worse.
That dynamic is exacerbated when the venom of partisanship is factored into the equation. “We’re finally seeing, I think, a level of frustration, over the misuse of the filibuster, not as an infrequently applied tool by a minority on an issue about which they feel very, very strongly, but as a cynical weapon of mass obstruction…. And it means if you don’t have more than 60 of your own party members, you’re just dramatically limited in what you can do in policy terms. And it’s basically because you have a minority party that’s not looking to solve problems, but to figure out how to block anything of significance in… [the majority party’s] agenda, and make sure problems fester so that they have more traction to gain political advantage,” according to Norm Ornstein, political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute.
**Background**
A filibuster is a parliamentary means for blocking a legislative body’s vote on an issue. As Encyclopaedia Britannica explains, a filibuster is “used in the United States Senate by a minority of the senators—sometimes even a single senator—to delay or prevent parliamentary action by talking so long that the majority either grants concessions or withdraws the bill.” The strategy is only used in the Senate because “unlike the House of Representatives, in which rules limit speaking time, the Senate allows unlimited debate on a bill. Speeches can be completely irrelevant to the issue.” [1]
Two tactics can be used to defeat the filibuster: by invoking cloture (thereby limiting or ending debate and mandating a vote on the issue at hand) or by maintaining around-the-clock sessions to tire those using the filibuster. Perhaps the most famous depiction of a marathon filibuster, and the various tactics used to fight it, is the climactic scene in the classic 1939 movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, when the star of the film, an idealistic freshman senator played by Jimmy Stewart, finally collapses on the Senate floor from exhaustion. [1] [2]
The word “filibuster” itself emerged from piracy. Derived from Dutch and Spanish, the term first appeared in English in 1591 as “flee-booters,” referring to people who raided the Caribbean Spanish colonies. The word gained a syllable along the way, and by the 1850s “filibusters” were Americans who traveled to the Spanish West Indies and Central America to encourage revolution. When applied to Senate speechifying, as NPR host Melissa Block has explained, “Filibustering senators were, by extension, pirates raiding the Congress for their own political gain.” [3]
Ironically, the first instance of “talking a bill to death” happened during the very first session of Congress, on Sep. 22, 1789. As Anti-Administration Party Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania wrote in his journal, the “design of the Virginians and the Carolina gentleman was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” Despite the proto-filibustering, the bill was passed 31-17, wrote Maclay. [4] [5]
In 1789, both the House and Senate had a rule allowing for a simple majority to end debate: the “previous question motion.” The House rulebook still has that motion. The Senate eliminated it in 1805 when Vice President Aaron Burr (who had just been indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton) told the Senate to clean up their rulebook, specifically to get rid of this tactic. The Senate did so in 1806, eliminating the Senate’s ability to end debate with a simple majority, thereby enabling the filibuster. [6]
According to the US Senate, the term “filibuster” first came into congressional use when Mississippi Democrat Senator Albert Brown noted his “friend standing on the other side of the House filibustering” on Jan. 3, 1853, and when North Carolina Whig Senator George Badger bemoaned “filibustering speeches” in February of the same year. Other sources state “filibuster” didn’t take on its Senate meaning until 1889 or 1890. [3] [4]
The debate over eliminating the filibuster is almost as old as its appearance in the Senate. As early as 1841, Kentucky Whig Senator Henry Clay, frustrated with filibustering Democrats, threatened to limit debate. Alabama Democrat Senator William King countered that Clay might as well “make his arrangements at his boarding house for the [entire] winter” in preparation for even longer debates to maintain the filibuster. [4]
But as the Senate grew in members and the amount of work it had to do, so did frustrations with the filibuster, as long speeches could derail work for days. President Woodrow Wilson made his displeasure known when, at the end of the 64th Congress on Mar. 4, 1917, the Senate’s work had not been completed: the “Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” [4] [7] [8] [9]
At Wilson’s urging, in a special congressional session, Senate Rule 22 was adopted on Mar. 8, 1917. The rule meant that senators could file a motion to invoke cloture, which would prompt a vote on whether to end the debate two business days after the motion was filed, allowing up to 30 additional hours of debate. Two-thirds of the Senate was required to end a filibuster with cloture until 1974 when the rule was changed to three-fifths (meaning 60 US senators). If the motion is approved during the cloture vote, then cloture has been invoked and the Senate will vote on the item in question without further delay and debate. [4] [7] [8] [9]
The first invocation of cloture occurred on Nov. 15, 1919, and ended debate on the Treaty of Versailles. Between 1917 and Aug. 8, 2022, US Senators have filed 2,591 cloture motions, voted on cloture 2,062 times, and successfully invoked cloture in 1,361 cases. At first used sparingly, cloture recently became a more popular tool during the 113th Congress (2013-2014) when its use jumped to 187 from 41 clotures in the 112th Congress (2011-2012). [10] [11]
The longest individual filibuster on record occurred in 1957, when US Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina talked for more than 24 hours as part of an unsuccessful attempt by Southern senators to obstruct civil rights legislation. [1]
Key to the current debate over filibusters is the political parity that exists in the US Congress. With the US Senate almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, at a time when the parties share little ideological overlap and seldom agree on anything, the filibuster has become a prime tool for hindering the presidential and congressional agendas of the majority party, whose control over the Senate is slight and tenuous and far from a large mandate, making legislation almost impossible to pass. [12]
Additionally, senators no longer have to actually talk for hours to filibuster. Just the threat of a filibuster (also called a “virtual filibuster”) is enough to effectively block legislation. William Galston, Cofounder of the Congressional reform group No Labels, describes the tactic as a “sort of a ‘Look ma, no hands’ way of avoiding accountability” and the sweat equity that once required senators to talk for hours. [47] [48]
An Apr. 29, 2021, Monmouth University poll found 38% of Americans want to keep the filibuster with no changes, 38% believe the Senate should reform filibuster rules, and 19% would get rid of the filibuster entirely. However, only 19% of Americans stated they were “very familiar” with how the filibuster functions, while 12% were “not too familiar” or “not at all familiar” with the strategy and 29% had never heard of the filibuster. [13]
The unfamiliarity with the filibuster creates a difficulty among Americans in thinking about how to reform the Senate procedure. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the filibuster has been modified more than 160 times since its introduction. Recently, the “nuclear option” has been used in 2013 and 2017 to eliminate the use of the filibuster for presidential executive and judicial appointments and US Supreme Court nominees. The “nuclear option” allows senators to change Senate rules with a simple majority vote. Following this option, senators could mandate the elimination of the filibuster for specific key party platform legislation such as voting rights. [14] [15]
Another possible reform would be to change the threshold for invoking cloture from 60 to a higher or lower number of senators in order to strengthen or weaken the filibuster. One version is an “inverted filibuster” in which only 41 votes (instead of 60) would be needed to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, thereby shifting the burden to the dissenting senators instead of the senators promoting the legislation in question. Also suggested is to require three-fifths of “present and voting” senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster instead of the current requirement of three-fifths of “duly chosen and sworn” senators, many of whom may not be present or voting, thereby making it easier to kill a filibuster. [14] [16]
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Other policy changes can fix Social Security more effectively and less disruptively than privatization.
Future budget shortfalls can be eliminated by reducing benefits, increasing taxes, and/or raising the retirement age. [82] [83] [84] [85]
In 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that either a 15% cut in benefits or a 2% payroll tax increase could keep the trust funds solvent for an additional 44 years. In addition, the CBO found that eliminating the payroll tax cap ($118,500 as of 2015) would also keep the trust funds solvent for another 44 years.
Higher returns could be offered to retirees if Congress allowed the Social Security Trust Funds to invest in equities in addition to bonds.
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?'
**Argument**
Standardized tests scores are not predictors of future success.
Standardized tests can only, at best, evaluate rote knowledge of math, science, and English. The tests do not evaluate creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, artistic ability, or other knowledge areas that cannot be judged by scoring a sheet of bubbles filled in with a pencil.
Grade point averages (GPA) are a 5 times stronger indicator of college success than standardized tests, according to a study of 55,084 Chicago public school students. One of the authors, Elaine M. Allensworth, PhD, Lewis-Sebring Director of the University of Chicago Consortium, stated, “GPAs measure a very wide variety of skills and behaviors that are needed for success in college, where students will encounter widely varying content and expectations. In contrast, standardized tests measure only a small set of the skills that students need to succeed in college, and students can prepare for these tests in narrow ways that may not translate into better preparation to succeed in college.”
Matthew M. Chingos, PhD, Vice President of Education Data and Policy at the Urban Institute, explained, “earning good grades requires consistent behaviors over time—showing up to class and participating, turning in assignments, taking quizzes, etc.—whereas students could in theory do well on a test even if they do not have the motivation and perseverance needed to achieve good grades. It seems likely that the kinds of habits high school grades capture are more relevant for success in college than a score from a single test.”
**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…
|
# Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
The embargo prevents the people of Cuba from joining the digital age by cutting them off from technology, and restricts the electronic flow of information to the island.
Fewer than one in four Cubans accessed the internet in 2011.
Though the Cuban government began permitting internet access in private homes in 2019, most access is too expensive for widespread use, costing residents about 26% of the average salary for what amounts to 7% of the average American’s internet data. And the government still controls legal access to the internet.
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
A gold standard puts limits on government power by restricting the ability to print money at will and increase the national debt.
With a fiat currency the government can essentially manufacture money out of thin air. Since leaving the gold standard in 1971 US currency in circulation (M1) increased from $48.6 billion to over $5.2 trillion in June 2020. Under a gold standard, new money could only be printed if a corresponding amount of gold were available to back the currency. This restriction is an essential check on government power.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Field, who served from 1863-1897, argued against fiat money, stating, ”arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.”
Under the fiat money system used by the United States the government can raise money by issuing treasury bonds, which the Federal Reserve can purchase with newly printed money. These bonds count toward the national debt. Between 1971 and 2019, the national debt increased 5,515% from $406 billion to $22.8 trillion. This increase in debt corresponded with an 2,606% increase in the money supply (M3) between May 1971 ($666.7 billion) and May 2020 ($18.0 trillion).
As a percentage of the GDP (gross domestic product) the national debt has more than doubled since leaving the gold standard, going from from 35.6% in the fourth quarter 1971 to 107.7% in the first quarter of 2020.
**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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Character:
Clinton was deeply religious from a young age and regularly attended a Baptist church as an adult. He once said, “Religious faith has permitted me to believe in the continuing possibility of becoming a better person every day, to believe in the search for complete integrity in life.” Clinton’s private marital issues were unrelated to his ability to govern the US. Even after the news of his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky broke in early 1998, his approval rating was 63 percent according to a Washington Post poll.
**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…
|
# Defunding the Police Pros and Cons | Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Police departments are historically oppressive and violent. Defunding them could reduce violence against people of color and overall crime.
Paige Fernandez, MPP, Policing Policy Advisor for the ACLU, noted, “American policing has never been a neutral institution. The first U.S. city police department was a slave patrol, and modern police forces have directed oppression and violence at Black people to enforce Jim Crow, wage the War on Drugs, and crack down on protests.” Police departments are also often outfitted with surplus military equipment, increasing police firepower and the attitude that police are at war with communities, which can escalate situations to violence.
Organizations such as mpd150, which surveyed the Minneapolis Police Department’s conduct since its inception in 1867, argue that the police system is actually not broken–it’s working as it always has, because “[t]he police were established to protect the interests of the wealthy and racialized violence has always been part of the mission.” mpd150 states that the police system puts millions of people of color in prison, which limits or deprives them of voting rights, employment, education, and access to housing, among other privileges given automatically to white people.
According to an Aug. 20, 2019 study, black American men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men; black women 1.4 times more likely than white women. A 2018 Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows police officers were twice as likely to use force against people of color than against white people. In 2019, US police officers killed 1,098 people, 24% of whom were black despite African Americans representing only 13% of the US population.
The American Public Health Association declared police violence a public health issue in 2018, stating, “[a]lmost 10 percent of all homicides in the US are committed by police. Even if some may be ‘lawful,’ it’s not ok that we kill 1,000-1,200 people a year by police.”
Defunding the police could result in fewer crimes and less violence from police. During several weeks in 2014 and 2015, when New York City police pulled back on “broken windows” policing that focused on actively patrolling for low-level crimes, about 2,100 fewer major crimes were reported, which represents a 3-6% drop in a matter of weeks. If police are not actively patrolling for minor crimes and are responding to fewer major crimes, there are fewer opportunities for violence.
**Background**
Amid the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, calls to “defund the police” began to populate protest signs and social media posts.
While there are multiple interpretations of “defund the police,” the basic definition is to move funding away from police departments and into community resources such as mental health experts, housing, and social workers. In the larger scope of the civil rights movement, some advocates would reallocate some police funding but keep police departments, others would combine defunding with other police reforms such as body cameras and bias training, and others see defunding as a small step toward ultimately abolishing police departments and the prison system entirely. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
According to the most recent data available, police departments received about $114.5 billion nationwide in 2017 from state and local governments, up from $42.3 billion in 1977. Police budgets have made up around 4% of total state and local budgets since 1977. About 97% of police budgets go toward operational costs such as salaries and benefits. However, individual cities or counties may allocate more funds to police departments. The 2017 Los Angeles city budget, for example, provided 23% of the budget to police, while 9% of Los Angeles county’s budget went to policing. [7] [8] [9]
In June 2020, 64% of Americans opposed the abstract idea of defunding the police, while 34% supported the movement. 60% were against reallocating police budget funds to other public health and social programs, while 39% were in favor. [10]
In Oct. 2021, 21% of American adults wanted police budgets “increased a lot” and 26% wanted budgets “increased a little,” while 9% wanted police budgets “decreased a little” and 6% “decreased a lot.” 37% said budgets should “stay about the same.” [58]
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Foreign Policy:
Reagan helped bring an end to the 46-year-old Cold War, through a combination of hostile, anti-communist rhetoric and a massive arms buildup followed by skillful diplomacy and disarmament. On Nov. 9, 1989, just over two years after his famous Brandenburg Gate speech, the Berlin Wall fell, marking the end of communism in Germany. On Dec. 15, 1991, after four bilateral summits with Reagan, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union.
**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 Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Over-the-counter (OTC) birth control would raise the cost of the drug.
Making birth control pills OTC means they would no longer be covered by insurance and women would have to pay for them on their own. With the Obamacare birth control mandate, insured women, who account for 89% of American women, can access free birth control. The National Women’s Law Center estimated that 64.2 million women had birth control coverage with no out-of-pocket cost. Stuart O. Schweitzer, UCLA Professor of Health Policy and Management, stated that OTC is “more expensive to consumers than a prescribed drug that’s covered by insurance.” Before Plan B emergency contraception went OTC, the drug cost about $12 for the brand name and $5 for the generic for women using Medicaid. After the drug became OTC, the cost increased to $50 for the brand name and $41 for the generic. Kelly Cleland, Research Specialist at Columbia University stated, “When the generics [of Plan B] were about to go onto the shelves I thought there might be a price war that would push the cost down. But that really hasn’t happened, and I don’t see a sign that it will.”
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Enacting gun control laws such as mandatory safety features would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.
Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Physicians Alliance, states with the highest concentration of guns have nine times the amount of accidental gun deaths and “89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home—and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents’ absence.” The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired. Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, “We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves… [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot ‘gun-proof’ them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children.”
**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…
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.