text
stringlengths 558
17k
|
|---|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal.
For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws.
**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…
|
# Corporal Punishment in K-12 Schools - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
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.”
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.
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.”
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.
A study in Applied Economics Letters found that “assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level” and “states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.” While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, “States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes… The effect on ‘shall-issue’ [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.” More than two-thirds of gun owners cite protection as a major reason for owning a gun. Journalist John Stossel explained, “Criminals don’t obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job… As the saying goes, ‘If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'”
**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**
Average temperatures on earth have increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural climate changes.
Average surface temperatures on earth have risen more than 2°F over the past 100 years. According to NASA, “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”
A 2008 study comparing data from tree rings, ice cores, and corals over the past millennium created the famous “hockey stick” graph showing a steady trend in the earth’s temperature over the last 1,700 years followed by a steep jump in the previous decade (forming a shape like a hockey stick). Berkeley scientists found that the average temperature of the earth’s land increased 2.5°F over 250 years (1750-2000), 1.5°F of which “appears likely” to be attributable to humans over the past 50 years.
**Background**
Average surface temperatures on earth have risen more than 2°F over the past 100 years. During this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. This site explores the debate on whether climate change is caused by humans (also known as anthropogenic climate change).
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts. They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate changes.
The con side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun’s heat and ocean currents. They say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science. Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?'
**Argument**
Drone strikes terrorize and kill civilians.
A Pakistani man stated, “When [children] hear the drones, they get really scared, and they can hear them all the time so they’re always fearful that the drone is going to attack them. Because of the noise, we’re psychologically disturbed — women, men, and children… Twenty-four hours, [a] person is in stress and there is pain in his head.” Yemeni tribal sheik Mullah Zabara said, “we consider the drones terrorism. The drones are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism.”
Clive Stafford Smith, Director of Reprieve, a human rights organization, stated, “an entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups.”
According to Micah Zenko, PhD, political scientist, and Amelia May Wolf, research associate in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, “drones are far less precise than airstrikes conducted by piloted aircraft, which themselves also conduct ‘precision strikes.’ Drones result in far more civilian fatalities per each bomb dropped.”
President Obama’s policy of “signature strikes” allowed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to target anyone who fits a specific terrorist profile or engages in behavior the US government associates with terrorists, regardless of whether they have been conclusively identified as enemy combatants. Classified documents leaked in Oct. 2015 showed that in one five-month period of drone strikes in Afghanistan, as many as 90% of those killed were not the intended targets, and that those unintended deaths were classified as “enemies killed in action” regardless of whether they were civilians or combatants.
At the height of the drone program in Pakistan in 2009 and 2010, as many as half of the strikes were classified as signature strikes. According to top-secret intelligence reports, drone operators are not always certain of who they are killing “despite the administration’s guarantees of the accuracy of the CIA’s targeting intelligence.” The CIA and JSOC target “associated forces,” “foreign fighters,” “suspected extremists,” and “other militants,” but do not publicly reveal whether the people killed are actively involved in terrorism against the United States. In two sets of classified documents obtained by NBC News, 26 of 114 drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan between Sep. 3, 2010 and Oct. 30, 2011, targeted “other militants,” meaning that the CIA could not conclusively determine the affiliation of those 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.
|
# Electoral College Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Democracy should function on the will of the people, allowing one vote per adult.
There are over an estimated 332 million people in the United States, with population estimates predicting almost 342 million by 2024, the next presidential election. But just 538 people decide who will be president; that’s about 0.000156% of the population deciding the president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than one million votes, yet still lost the election on electoral votes.
Robert Nemanich, math teacher and former elector from Colorado Springs, stated, “Do we really want 538 Bob Nemanichs electing our president? …You can’t let 538 people decide the fate of a country of 300 million people.”
Even President Donald Trump, who benefitted from the Electoral College system, stated after the 2016 election that he believes presidents should be chosen by popular vote: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.” Just as in 2000 when George W. Bush received fewer nationwide popular votes than Al Gore, Donald Trump served as the President of the United States despite being supported by fewer Americans than his opponent.
Jesse Wegman, author of Let the People Pick the President, stated, “If anything, representative democracy in the 21st century is about political equality. It’s about one person, one vote — everybody’s vote counting equally. You’re not going to convince a majority of Americans that that’s not how you should do it.”
John Koza, Chairman of National Popular Vote, warned, “At this point I think changing the system to something better is going to determine whether there’s a dictator in this country.”
**Background**
The debate over the continued use of the Electoral College resurfaced during the 2016 presidential election, when Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes. The official general election results indicate that Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and 46.09% of the popular vote (62,984,825 votes), and Hillary Clinton received 227 Electoral College votes and 48.18% of the popular vote (65,853,516 votes). [1]
Prior to the 2016 election, there were four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote: 1824 (John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson), 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland), and 2000 (George W. Bush over Al Gore). [2]
The Electoral College was established in 1788 by Article II of the US Constitution, which also established the executive branch of the US government, and was revised by the Twelfth Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804), the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified July 1868), and the Twenty-Third Amendment (ratified Mar. 29, 1961). Because the procedure for electing the president is part of the Constitution, a Constitutional Amendment (which requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress plus approval by 38 states) would be required to abolish the Electoral College. [3] [4] [5] [6]
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between electing the president via a vote in Congress only or via a popular vote only. The Electoral College comprises 538 electors; each state is allowed one elector for each Representative and Senator (DC is allowed 3 electors as established by the Twenty-Third Amendment). [3] [4] [5] [6]
In each state, a group of electors is chosen by each political party. On election day, voters choosing a presidential candidate are actually casting a vote for an elector. Most states use the “winner-take-all” method, in which all electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state. In Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the state’s overall popular vote receives two electors, and one elector from each congressional district is apportioned to the popular vote winner in that district. For a candidate to win the presidency, he or she must win at least 270 Electoral College votes. [3] [4] [5] [6]
At least 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. [25]
On Monday Dec. 19, 2016, the electors in each state met to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Of the 538 Electoral College votes available, Donald J. Trump received 304 votes, Hillary Clinton received 227 votes, and seven votes went to others: three for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle, one for John Kasich, one for Ron Paul, and one for Bernie Sanders). On Dec. 22, 2016, the results were certified in all 50 states. On Jan. 6, 2017, a joint session of the US Congress met to certify the election results and Vice President Joe Biden, presiding as President of the Senate, read the certified vote tally. [21] [22]
A Sep. 2020 Gallup poll found 61% of Americans were in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, up 12 points from 2016. [24]
For the 2020 election, electors voted on Dec. 14, and delivered the results on Dec. 23. On Jan. 6, 2021, Congress held a joint session to certify the electoral college votes during which several Republican lawmakers objected to the results and pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol sending Vice President Pence, lawmakers and staff to secure locations. The votes were certified in the early hours of Jan. 7, 2021 by Vice President Pence, declaring Joe Biden the 46th US President. President Joe Biden was inaugurated with Vice President Kamala Harris on Jan. 20, 2021. [23] [26]
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban “assault weapons,” infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport.
In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, and they spent $7.7 billion on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment. High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “So-called ‘Assault weapons’ are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term ‘assault weapon’ was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie… [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled ‘assault weapons,’ are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer.” According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
**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…
|
# CBD for Pets - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
CBD pet products are unregulated.
The lack of regulation means pet owners could be buying CBD with unlisted ingredients that are potentially toxic to their pets, such as THC. Experts say these products are in need of testing for the presence of heavy metals, pesticides, and THC. “It’s really the Wild West out there,” said S. David Moche, MBA, CEO of a veterinary medicine company that sells CBD products.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that 70% of the CBD products they analyzed didn’t match the concentration listed on the label, and 21% of their samples contained THC despite it not being on the label.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said in a statement, “We want to stress that FDA has not approved cannabis for any use in animals, and the agency cannot ensure the safety or effectiveness of these products.” According to the FDA, animals who ingest cannabis could suffer negative side effects such as “lethargy, depression, heavy drooling, vomiting, agitation, tremors, and convulsions.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
When people talk about giving marijuana to pets, they are really talking about the use of CBD products derived from hemp. The California Veterinary Medical Board explains that CBD is the “abbreviation for cannabidiol, which is one out of 60 naturally occurring compounds present in cannabis. It is the second-most prevalent cannabinoid in both hemp and marijuana and is nonpsychoactive.” CBD extracted from hemp contains less than 0.3% THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the compound in marijuana that causes the high. [1]
THC is toxic for cats and dogs even in small amounts. The ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center reported a 765% increase in calls regarding animals ingesting marijuana from 2018 to 2019.[27]
In 2020, pet owners spent about $99 billion on their furry friends, a growth of 12 times over 2019 as more people worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The market for CBD products aimed at companion animals jumped from $32 million in 2018 to $400 million in 2019. During the pandemic, in 2020 sales rose to $426 million and are expected to jump to $629 million in 2021.[2] [3] [34] [35]
A survey found that 11% of dog owners and 8% of cat owners gave CBD to their pets in 2019, often in the form of pet treats, tinctures administered under the tongue, and salves or creams applied topically. Reasons cited for giving CBD to companion animals included caring for aging pets and treating conditions such as anxiety, pain, and seizures. [7] [8] [9] [10]
|
# CBD for Pets - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Using CBD instead of traditional medicine may harm animals.
A phenomenon called the “caregiver placebo effect” may cause pet owners to misread their animals’ response to CBD. This might lead to suffering in animals that could have been helped by veterinarian-prescribed medications with scientifically proven effectiveness.
Alex Avery, BVSc, veterinary surgeon and founder of Our Pets Health, said, “Because we are so invested in our pet, we really want to see them improve and likely believe the treatment will work… There is a real risk we will see improvement even when it is not there.”
Much of what we know about therapeutic CBD is specific to humans, and its effects on companion animals could be quite different because they don’t metabolize it the same way. CBD could also cause dangerous interactions with pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by a vet.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
When people talk about giving marijuana to pets, they are really talking about the use of CBD products derived from hemp. The California Veterinary Medical Board explains that CBD is the “abbreviation for cannabidiol, which is one out of 60 naturally occurring compounds present in cannabis. It is the second-most prevalent cannabinoid in both hemp and marijuana and is nonpsychoactive.” CBD extracted from hemp contains less than 0.3% THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the compound in marijuana that causes the high. [1]
THC is toxic for cats and dogs even in small amounts. The ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center reported a 765% increase in calls regarding animals ingesting marijuana from 2018 to 2019.[27]
In 2020, pet owners spent about $99 billion on their furry friends, a growth of 12 times over 2019 as more people worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The market for CBD products aimed at companion animals jumped from $32 million in 2018 to $400 million in 2019. During the pandemic, in 2020 sales rose to $426 million and are expected to jump to $629 million in 2021.[2] [3] [34] [35]
A survey found that 11% of dog owners and 8% of cat owners gave CBD to their pets in 2019, often in the form of pet treats, tinctures administered under the tongue, and salves or creams applied topically. Reasons cited for giving CBD to companion animals included caring for aging pets and treating conditions such as anxiety, pain, and seizures. [7] [8] [9] [10]
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccines are unnatural, and natural immunity is more effective than vaccination.
Even pro-vaccine organizations state that natural vaccination causes better immunity. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia notes that “It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses.” Mayo Clinic states that natural infection “often provides more complete immunity than a series of vaccinations.” Kurt Perkins, DC, a chiropractor and wellness expert, stated, “A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients (aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc.) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.”
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing.
According to a survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom.
**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…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Simple statistics do not support the claim that violent video games cause mass shootings or other violence.
Katherine Newman, PhD, Dean of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, explained: “Millions of young people play video games full of fistfights, blazing guns, and body slams… Yet only a minuscule fraction of the consumers become violent.”
A report by the US Secret Service and US Department of Education examined 37 incidents of targeted school violence between 1974 and 2000. Of the 41 attackers studied, 27% had an interest in violent movies, 24% in violent books, and 37% exhibited interest in their own violent writings, while only 12% showed interest in violent video games. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings.
Patrick M. Markey, PhD, Director of the Interpersonal Research Laboratory at Villanova University, stated, “90% of young males play video games. Finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks.”
Further, gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use. A study of the countries representing the 10 largest video game markets internationally found no correlation between playing video games and gun-related killings. Even though US gun violence is high, the nine other countries with the highest video game usage have some of the lowest violent crime rates (and eight of those countries spend more per capita on video games than the United States).
**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…
|
# Zoos - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Zoos educate the public about animals and conservation efforts.
As of Apr. 2021, there are 241 accredited zoos in the United States. The zoos attract over 181 million visitors annually, which is more than the approximately 131 million yearly spectators of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB combined.
According to a study of 26 zoos worldwide published in Conservation Biology, visitors to zoos increased their knowledge of biodiversity and specific individual actions to protect biodiversity.
Robin Ganzert, PhD, President and CEO of American Humane, stated, “zoos provide people, especially impressionable children, with the opportunity to see these remarkable animals up close. People won’t protect what they don’t love, and they can’t love what they don’t know. No matter how closely programs like Planet Earth depict animals, nothing will match the bond of seeing them in real life. Just look at a child’s eyes at the zoo when he or she encounters a tiger or similarly majestic animal.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Zoos have existed in some form since at least 2500 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, where records indicate giraffes, bears, dolphins, and other animals were kept by aristocrats. The oldest still operating zoo in the world, Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna, opened in 1752. [1] [2]
The contemporary zoo evolved from 19th century European zoos. Largely modeled after the London Zoo in Regent’s Park, these zoos were intended for “genteel amusement and edification,” according to Emma Marris, environmental writer and Institute Fellow at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. As such, reptile houses, aviaries, and insectariums were added with animals grouped taxonomically, to move zoos beyond the spectacle of big, scary animals. [40]
Carl Hegenbeck, a German exotic animal importer, introduced the modern model of more natural habitats for animals instead of obvious cages at his Animal Park in Hamburg in 1907. That change prompted the shift in zoo narrative from entertainment to the protection of animals. In the late 20th century, the narrative changed again to the conservation of animals to stave off extinction. [40]
Controversy has historically surrounded zoos, from debates over displaying “exotic” humans in exhibits to zookeepers not knowing what to feed animals. A gorilla named Madame Ningo, the first gorilla to arrive in the United States in 1911 who was to live at the Bronx Zoo, was fed hot dinners and cooked meat despite gorillas being herbivores, for example. [3] [4]
The contemporary debate about zoos tends to focus on animal welfare on both sides, whether zoos protect animals or imprison them.
|
# Should People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
A vegetarian diet is more healthful than a carnivorous diet.
According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet can meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids (the building blocks of protein), and improve health. It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one’s health.
According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet. Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colorectal, stomach, and esophageal cancers. Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron.
Meat also has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost. There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals.
A vegetarian diet reduces overuse of antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in CAFOs causes antibiotic resistant bacteria to develop, which may endanger human health.
**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…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms may delay the transition into adulthood.
Adults make their own clothing choices and have the freedom to express themselves through their appearance. Denying children and teenagers the opportunity to make those choices may make them ill-prepared for the adult world. Adolescents see clothing choices as a means of identification, and seeking an identity is one of the critical stages of adolescence, according to the late developmental psychologist Erik Erikson.
**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…
|
# Fracking Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Fracking pollutes groundwater, increases greenhouse gases, and causes earthquakes.
According to Environment America Research and Policy Center, “Fracking uses vast quantities of chemicals known to harm human health… [including at least] 5 billion pounds of hydrochloric acid, a caustic acid; 1.2 billion pounds of petroleum distillates, which can irritate the throat, lungs and eyes; cause dizziness and nausea; and can include toxic and cancer-causing agents; and 445 million pounds of methanol, which is suspected of causing birth defects… People living or working nearby can be exposed to these chemicals if they enter drinking water after a spill or if they become airborne.”
A study from Cornell University found that the fracking process releases large quantities of greenhouse gases, including methane, that ultimately results in 20% more global warming per unit than coal. While the fracking process itself is unlikely to cause earthquakes, the USGS has found that disposal wells for wastewater from fracking are associated with an “unprecedented increase” in earthquakes.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) summarized, “Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it’s highly explosive. To top it all off, it’s contributing to climate change. If we are serious about clean air and drinking water, if we are serious about combating climate change, the only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide.”
**Background**
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement. Then, a horizontal well is drilled in the layer of rock that contains natural gas. After that, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at an extremely high pressure so that it fractures the rock in a way that allows oil and gas to flow through the cracks to the surface. [1]
Colonel Edward A. L. Roberts first developed a version of fracking in 1862. During the Civil War at the Battle of Fredericksburg, Roberts noticed how artillery blasts affected channels of water. The idea of “shooting the well” was further developed by lowering a sort of torpedo into an oil well. The torpedo was then detonated, which increased oil flow. [2]
In the 1940s, explosives were replaced by high-pressure liquids, beginning the era of hydraulic fracturing. The 21st century brought two further innovations: horizontal drilling and slick water (a mix of water, sand, and chemicals) to increase fluid flow. Spurred by increased financial investment and global oil prices, fracking picked up speed and favor. About one million oil wells were fracked between 1940 and 2014, with about one third of the wells fracked after 2000. [2] [3]
Most US states allow fracking, though four states have banned the practice as of Feb. 2021: Vermont (2012), New York (temporarily in 2014; permanently in 2020), Maryland (2017), and Washington (2019). In Apr. 2021, California banned new fracking projects as of 2024. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [32]
Fracking was a hot-button issue during the US presidential race of 2020, with President Trump firmly in favor of fracking and Vice President Biden expressing more concern about the practice, especially on federal lands.
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
The total cost of going to college also includes the cost of missing opportunities to make money at a job.
The total cost of going to college means more than tuition, fees, and books; it also includes an opportunity cost which equals at least four years of missed wages and advancements from a full-time job–about $49,000 for a 4-year degree and $20,000 for a 2-year 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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Foreign Policy:
Clinton played an instrumental role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. He helped to get former Soviet nations to give up their nuclear arsenals and improve their control of nuclear materials. Clinton worked with NATO, a military alliance between Europe and North America, to bomb Serbia to end Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing campaign. Clinton then sent 20,000 American troops to enforce peace in the region, a mission with no American casualties. He nearly orchestrated a historic Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement at Camp David in 2001.
**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…
|
# US Supreme Court Packing - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Supreme Court is politically partisan and ideologically imbalanced. Adding justices would ensure that it never reflects only one party’s political agenda.
Of the last 19 Supreme Court Justices, Republicans have appointed 15, or 79%. As of Sep. 22, 2020, with the death of Associate Justice Ginsburg, the court has five conservative justices and three liberal justices.
Because Trump filled a seat that historical precedent says should have been filled by Obama, a third Trump appointee to fill Ginsburg’s seat further imbalances the court. When this sort of imbalance exists, court packing should be considered.
Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin, progressive political organizers, argued, “We absolutely have to address the right-wing imbalance of the current court right now [Sep. 19, 2020]… There’s no way to rebalance the court without expanding it.”
Ian Millhiser, JD, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Editor of Think Progress Justice, explains the danger of a partisan court: “a rigidly partisan Supreme Court risks radicalizing the electorate against democracy itself” and, thus, “[t]he case for court-packing is clear, and the course of action is obvious, if the Supreme Court tries to rig elections so that only Republicans can win nationally.”
A conservative court could ensure Republican domination by ruling on matters like voting rights, essentially disallowing voting by majority Democrat groups like black voters, with voter ID, felon voting, and other disenfranchising laws.
According to Sam Berger, JD, Vice President, Democracy and Government Reform at Center for American Progress, Republicans have engaged in court packing that demands a Democratic response: “If allowed to stand, conservative court packing will have real consequences for a generation or more. Conservative judicial ideologues can limit rigorous campaign finance reform; place a judicial stamp of approval on anti-democratic gerrymandering and voter suppression; undermine unions; and gut reproductive rights. They can also undermine future efforts at progressive reform through specious legal claims—and once the Supreme Court has ruled something unconstitutional, it can shut down policymaking in that space completely.”
While the 2020 court packing debate is about a majority conservative Supreme Court, the political spectrum could easily be flipped, with conservatives fearing the loss of their ideals. The makeup of the Supreme Court should not reflect partisan politics, but should, instead, reflect the will of the people and be beholden only to the US Constitution.
**Background**
Court packing is increasing the number of seats on a court to change the ideological makeup of the court. [1] The US Constitution does not dictate the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but states only: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” [2]
The number of justices on the Court, set at nine since the mid-19th century, has changed over the years. The court was founded in 1789 with six justices, but was reduced to five in 1801 and increased to six in 1802, followed by small changes over the subsequent 67 years. [14] [15] As explained in Encyclopaedia Britannica, “In 1807 a seventh justice was added, followed by an eighth and a ninth in 1837 and a tenth in 1863. The size of the court has sometimes been subject to political manipulation; for example, in 1866 Congress provided for the gradual reduction (through attrition) of the court to seven justices to ensure that President Andrew Johnson, whom the House of Representatives later impeached and the Senate only narrowly acquitted, could not appoint a new justice. The number of justices reached eight before Congress, after Johnson had left office, adopted new legislation (1869) setting the number at nine, where it has remained ever since.” [3]
The idea of court packing dates to 1937 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed adding a new justice to the Supreme Court for every justice who refused to retire at 70 years old, up to a maximum of 15 justices. The effort is frequently framed as a battle between “an entrenched, reactionary Supreme Court, which overturned a slew of Roosevelt’s New Deal economic reforms, against a hubristic president willing to take the unprecedented step of asking Congress to appoint six new, and sympathetic, justices to the bench,” according to Cicero Institute Senior Policy Advisor Judge Glock, PhD. Roosevelt’s proposal was seen by many as a naked power grab for control of a second branch of government. Plus, as Glock points out, a then new law reducing Supreme Court pensions was preventing retirements at the very time Roosevelt was calling for them. [4] [5] [6]
The contemporary debate has been heavily influenced by events following the Feb. 13, 2016, death of conservative Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Citing the upcoming 2016 election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to consider President Barack Obama’s liberal Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. At the time, there were 342 days remaining in Obama’s presidency, 237 days until the 2016 election, and neither the 2016 Democratic nor Republican nominee had been chosen. Because the Senate approval process was delayed until 2017, the next president, Donald Trump, was allowed to appoint a new justice (conservative Neil Gorsuch) to what many Democrats called a “stolen seat” that should have been filled by Obama. [5] [7]
The court packing debate was reinvigorated in 2019 with the appointment of conservative Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump after liberal-leaning swing vote Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in July 2018. [1] In the wake of this appointment, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, then also a 2020 presidential candidate, suggested expanding the court to 15 justices in the Oct. 15, 2019, Democratic presidential debate. [8]
Then largely brushed aside as “radical,” the topic resurfaced once again upon the death of liberal stalwart Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sep. 18, 2020. Liberals, and some conservatives, argued that the 2016 precedent should be followed and that Justice Ginsburg’s seat should remain empty until after the 2020 presidential election or the Jan. 2021 presidential inauguration. However, McConnell and the Republicans in control of the Senate, and thus the approval process, indicated they would move forward with a Trump nomination without delay. McConnell defended these actions by stating the President and the Senate are of the same party (which was not the case in 2016, negating—from his perspective—that incident as a precedent that needed following), and thus the country had confirmed Republican rule. [5] [7] [9]
Others argued as well that, since there was a chance that the results of the 2020 election could be challenged in the courts, and perhaps even at the Supreme Court level (due to concerns over the handling of mailed-in ballots), it was critical for an odd number of justices to sit on the Court (for an even number, such as eight, could mean a split 4-4 decision on the critical question of who would be deemed the next U.S. president, sending the country into a constitutional crisis). At the time of McConnell’s Sept. 18 announcement via Twitter, there were 124 days left in Trump’s term and 45 days until the 2020 election. Some called the impending nomination to replace Ginsburg and the 2016/2017 events a version of court packing by Republicans. [5] [7] [9]
Supreme Court nominees can be confirmed by the US Senate with a simple majority vote, with the Vice President called in to break a 50-50 tie. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 26, 2020 with a 52-48 vote to replace Justice Ginsburg, eight days before the 2020 election. [7] [24]
|
# Internet & "Stupidity" - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
IQ scores have been falling for decades, coinciding with the rise of technologies, including the internet.
For the majority of the 20th century, IQ scores rose an average of three points per decade, which is called the Flynn effect after James R. Flynn, a New Zealand intelligence researcher. Flynn believed this constant increase of IQ was related to better nutrition and increased access to education.
However, a 2018 Norwegian study found a reversal of the Flynn effect, with a drop of 7 IQ points per generation due to environmental causes such as the internet. As Evan Horowitz, PhD, Director of Research Communication at FCLT Global, summarized, “People are getting dumber. That’s not a judgment; it’s a global fact.”
James R Flynn, in a 2009 study, noted a drop in IQ points among British male teenagers, and hypothesized a cause: “It looks like there is something screwy among British teenagers. What we know is that the youth culture is more visually oriented around computer games than they are in terms of reading and holding conversations.”
Further, the internet makes us believe we can multitask, a skill scientists have found humans do not have. Our functional IQ drops 10 points as we are distracted by multiple browser tabs, email, a chat app, a video of puppies, and a text document, not to mention everything open on our tablets and smartphones, while listening to smart speakers and waiting on a video call.
The loss of 10 IQ points is more than the effect of a lost night’s sleep and more than double the effect of smoking marijuana. Not only can we not process all of these functions at once, but trying to do so degrades our performance in each. Trying to complete two tasks at the same time takes three to four times as long, each switch between tasks adds 20 to 25 seconds, and the effect magnifies with each new task. The internet has destroyed our ability to focus on and satisfactorily complete one task at a time.
**Background**
In a 2008 article for The Atlantic, Nicholas Carr asked, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr argued that the internet as a whole, not just Google, has been “chipping away [at his] capacity for concentration and contemplation.” He was concerned that the internet was “reprogramming us.” [1]
However, Carr also noted that we should “be skeptical of [his] skepticism,” because maybe he’s “just a worrywart.” He explained, “Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine.” [1]
The article, and Carr’s subsequent book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010, revised in 2020), ignited a continuing debate on and off the internet about how the medium is changing the ways we think, how we interact with text and each other, and the very fabric of society as a whole. [1]
ProCon asked readers their thoughts on how the internet affects their brains and whether online information is reliable and trustworthy. While 52.7% agreed or strongly agreed that being on the internet has caused a decline in their attention span and ability to concentrate, only 21.5% thought the internet caused them to lose the ability to perform simple tasks like reading a map. [41]
Only 18% believed online information was true. Nearly 60% admitted difficulty in determining if information online was truthful. And 77% desired a more effective way of managing and filtering information on the Internet to differentiate between fact, opinion, and overt disinformation. [41]
Between Apr. 28, 2021, and Sep. 1, 2022, the survey garnered 15,740 responses. To see the complete results, click here. To add your thoughts, complete the survey. [41]
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones.
20% of millennials are homeowners, and most millennials say their student debt has delayed home ownership by seven years on average. Student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the “transition to adulthood” milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents’ homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30.
**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 College Athletes Be Paid? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Scholarships are fair financial compensation for college athletes, especially considering the precarious finances of athletic departments.
According to the NCAA, the organization provides “more than $3.6 billion in athletic scholarships annually to more than 180,000 student-athletes.” Divided equitably, each student would receive about $20,000 per year. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average total cost of public college (tuition, fees, room, and board) for the 2017–18 academic year was $17,797. Considering other scholarships and aid are widely available and not all college athletes require financial aid, the NCAA scholarships are generous.
Further, most college programs do not generate the income needed to run their athletic programs, much less pay athletes. In fiscal year 2019, the collective expenses of the 65 Power Five schools–the largest and richest Division I schools in the NCAA–exceeded revenue by $7 million. Other Division I schools had an almost $23 million collective difference between revenue and expenses. No Division II or III schools’ revenue exceeded expenses.
If students were paid, the NCAA argues, many colleges and universities would have to offer fewer scholarships and the remaining scholarships would be distributed unfairly to top football and men’s basketball players because those two sports bring in the most revenue. Schools would also have to cut unprofitable sports including gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and wrestling. Discrepancies between men’s and women’s sports such as the weight room during the 2021 NCAA basketball tournament would only worsen.
Paying players would also limit the literal and figurative playing fields to elite universities with large budgets. As John Thelin, PhD, Research Professor of History of Higher Education & Public Policy at the University of Kentucky, explained, “paying salaries to players will increase [athletic] program expenditures without necessarily increasing revenues… [and] a handful of powerful programs will stand to gain in competition for athletic talent simply because they can afford to pay salaries. Others will mimic as they try to keep up but eventually will fall short in trying to outbid Auburn University, Florida State, the University of Southern California or the University of Texas in the college player arms race.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is a nonprofit organization formed in 1906 that regulates college athletics, including game rules, athlete eligibility, and college tournaments. [1] As of Mar. 2021, the NCAA was composed of “[n]early half a million college athletes [who] make up the 19,886 teams that send more than 57,661 participants to compete each year in the NCAA’s 90 championships in 24 sports across 3 divisions.” [1] [2]
The NCAA is seemingly the final authority to decide whether college athletes should be paid to play college sports. However, in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Play Act that allows college athletes to hire agents, sign endorsement deals, and be paid for the use of their likeness. [3]
California was the first state to pass a NIL (name, image, and likeness) law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2023. But California was quickly followed by more states. As of June 10, 2021, 18 states have passed NIL laws; five more states have passed bills that were awaiting the governor’s signature to become law; 14 states have introduced NIL bills; and one state has a bill passed by the Senate and awaiting a House vote, according to the Business of College Sports. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [42]
The NCAA was scheduled to vote on new NIL rules in Jan. 2021, but it then postponed the vote, citing “external factors.” [10] Days before the scheduled vote Makan Delrahim, JD, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration, questioned the proposed rules’ compliance with antitrust laws. [11]
Additionally, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Shawne Alston, et al.) about whether the NCAA is violating antitrust laws by restricting college athletes’ compensation. [12] The Supreme Court heard arguments on Mar. 31, 2021 as the NCAA March Madness tournament heads into Final Four games just days later on Apr. 3. Respondents were split 50/50 in a June 1, 2021 New York Times survey about whether the NCAA strictly limiting paid compensation is constitutional. [13] [14] [41]
Gabe Feldman, JD, Professor of Sports Law, Director of the Sports Law Program and Associate Provost for NCAA compliance at Tulane University, noted that the last time the NCAA was at the Supreme Court was in 1984 (NCAA vs. the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma). The ruling changed the broadcast regulations for college football. Feldman explained, “That was a shape-shifting decision that in many ways fundamentally changed economics of college football and college football television. And ever since that 1984 decision, courts have been relying on that language to try to interpret antitrust law applies to all NCAA restrictions, including player compensation.” [15]
On June 21, 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NCAA cannot ban certain payments to student athletes under the premise of maintaining amateurism. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated, “traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.” [43] [44]
On June 28, 2021, the NCAA Division I Council recommended to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors that student athletes be allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness. Schools would not be allowed to pay students and no one could offer compensation for students to attend a particular school. If adopted, the rule would only apply to Division I schools and would be temporary until the NCAA or Congress acts. [45]
On June 30, 2021, fewer than 12 hours before some states’ NIL laws went into effect, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors issued an interim ruling stating that Bylaw 12 (the rules that say athletes cannot receive payment) will not be enforced. Divisions II and III of the NCAA followed suit and the changes went into effect for all three divisions on July 1, 2021. [46]
The University of North Carolina became the first school to organize group licensing deals for student athletes in July 2021. UNC athletes will be able to earn money for NIL marketing including UNC trademarks and logos in groups of three or more athletes. For example, a student athlete will be compensated for the sale of a jersey featuring their name, or for a sponsorship deal in which they appear wearing a UNC jersey. Group licensing deals in theory can allow lesser-known players to reap the benefits of appearing alongside a well-known player. [47]
By Jan. 2022, without a clear NIL structure from the NCAA, some schools were questioning how to navigate deals for players or whole teams without violating NCAA policy. [48]
A 2019 Seton Hall Sports Poll found that 60% of those surveyed agreed that college athletes should be allowed compensation for their name, image, and/or likeness, while 32% disagreed, and 8% were unsure. This was quite a change from polling conducted in 2017, when 60% believed college scholarships were enough compensation for college athletes. [16]
|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Denying student loan debtors the benefits of bankruptcy--benefits that all other debtors have access to--is unfair.
The US Supreme Court said in 1915 that the benefits of bankruptcy allow debtors to “start afresh free from the obligations and responsibilities.” Famous business leaders from Henry Ford to President Donald Trump have used bankruptcy for a fresh start.
Car loans, credit card charges, medical bills, and even gambling debts can be discharged in bankruptcy; not allowing educational debt to be discharged is unfair. Mark Huelsman, Senior Policy Analyst at Demos, wrote, “[I]n a world where most students must borrow for a credential, borrowers should receive the same failsafe protections on these loans as they do on any other consumer loan.”
Students who didn’t understand the consequences of taking out big loans at age 18 or who were misled about future job prospects can be saddled with six-figure debt for decades.
**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]
|
# Is Golf a Sport?'
**Argument**
Golf does not require enough skill to meet the definition of sport.
“The more I practice, the luckier I get,” said golfer Jerry Barber (although the quote is frequently attributed to golfer Gary Player).
From avoiding water hazards and sand traps to hoping your ball isn’t carried off by local wildlife, golf is mainly luck. Gary N. Smith, Fletcher Jones Professor of Economics at Pomona College, explained: “Even among the best golfers, luck is endemic. There is considerable happenstance in gusts of wind and in fortunate and unfortunate bounces…. A total of 222 golfers have won at least one of the four majors (Open, Masters, U.S. Open, and PGA Championship). Of these major winners, 140 (63%) never won another major afterward. Even among the best golfers, luck is endemic. There is considerable happenstance in gusts of wind and in fortunate and unfortunate bounces. Sometimes a ball lands on a bank of grass and sticks; sometimes it rolls into a lake or sand trap. Sometimes a ball whistles through a tree; sometimes it bounces off a branch. Sometimes a branch ricochet puts the ball back on the fairway, where the grass is cut short and the ball can be played cleanly; sometimes the ball bounces into foot-high grass.”
As Lefty Gomez, an all-star pitcher for the New York Yankees in the 1930’s, allegedly said: “I’d rather be lucky than good.”
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Science/Technology:
Reagan’s over-ambitious space-based laser strategic defensive system, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or “Star Wars,” proved to be too technically complex and expensive to complete. From its inception in 1983 to its demise in 1993, the program cost taxpayers $33 billion dollars.
**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…
|
# Private Prisons - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Privatizing prisons is costly and leaves the most expensive prisoners to public prisons.
A 2019 study of prisons in Georgia found state prisons cost approximately $44.56 per inmate per day. Private prisons cost about $49.07 per inmate per day.
A 2014 study found the cost to incarcerate a prisoner for one year in a private prison was about $45,000, while the cost in a public prison was $50,000. The $5,000 savings is deceptive, however, because inmates in private prisons serve longer sentences, negating at least half of the savings, and recidivism rates are largely the same as in public prisons, further negating any savings.
In Arizona, a 2011 audit found medium-security state inmates cost 8.7% less per day (between $1,679 and $2,834 per inmate) than those at private prisons. Even a 1999 meta-study of prisons concluded, “private prisons were no more cost-effective than public prisons.”
The lack of per-prisoner savings is striking considering most private prisons only house minimum- and medium-security prisoners, who are less expensive to incarcerate than death row inmates, maximum-security inmates, or those with serious medical conditions whom the state has to house.
Private prisons also often charge governments for empty prison beds, resulting in excess costs for the governments.
**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]
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Using tablets is more expensive than using print textbooks.
Implementing tablets in K-12 schools requires purchasing hardware (the tablet) and software (the textbooks), building new wi-fi infrastructure, and training teachers and administrators how to use the technology. Implementation costs for e-textbooks on iPad tablets are 552% higher than new print textbooks in an average high school. Lee Wilson, a prominent education marketing expert, estimated the annual cost per student per class with tablets to be $71.55 vs. $14.26 for print textbooks.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Tuition has risen quicker than income, making college unaffordable for many.
A Mar. 2017 study found that 14% of community college students were homeless and 51% had housing insecurity issues (inability to pay rent or utilities, for example), while 33% experienced food insecurity (lack of access to or ability to pay for “nutritionally adequate and safe foods”), though 58% of the students were employed and 42% received federal Pell Grants. From the 1986-1987 school year to the 2016-2017 school year, the average cost of one year of college (including room and board) increased for 4-year private schools (109.6%) and 4-year public schools (125.7%), while median family income only increased 10.0% between 1986 and 2015. From the 1976-1977 school year to the 2016-2017 school year, annual tuition rates rose for community colleges (173.1%), 4-year public colleges (271.2%), and private 4-year colleges (213.5%).
**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 the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
Returning to a gold standard could harm national security by restricting the country’s ability to finance national defense.
A gold standard would prevent the sometimes necessary quick expansion of currency to finance war buildup. In order to help finance the Civil War, President Lincoln authorized the printing of $450 million in fiat currency known as “greenbacks.”
During World War I, the United States and many European countries stopped using a gold standard to finance war efforts by temporarily printing more money As Kimberly Amadeo, MBA, President of World Money Watch, noted, “The Great War proved to be the first nail in the coffin for the international gold standard… [as it] was causing deflation and unemployment to run rampant.”
The United States financed its involvement in World War II in large part by having the Federal Reserve print money, selling war bonds, and running large deficits.
**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…
|
# Olympics Hosting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Olympics increase valuable tourism, which can boost local economies.
The 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Games had a global audience of five billion with the Games broadcast in 200 countries. More than 56% of foreign visitors to Brazil for the 2016 Games were new visitors and Brazil set tourism records with 6.6 million foreign tourists and $6.2 billion dollars.
England welcomed more than one visitor every second in June 2013 after the 2012 London Summer Olympics, a 12% increase over 2012. Those tourists also spent more: $2.57 billion in June (a 13% increase) and $12.1 billion in the first half of 2013.
The 2018 Winter Games in PyeongChang reported a $55 million surplus that was used for the benefit of sport in the host country, South Korea. The 1992 Barcelona Summer Olympics made a profit, helping to revitalize the city and transform it from an “industrial backwater” into the third best city in Europe, according to Travel + Leisure magazine.
The 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles netted the city a $215 million operating surplus and $289 million in broadcasting fees. The Olympics brought a record 43.2 million tourists to Los Angeles County that year, an increase of 9.3% over 1983.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The Beijing 2022 Winter Games are scheduled for Feb. 4 – Feb. 20, 2022 and will debut seven new sports: freestyle skiing: mixed team aerials; freestyle skiing: men’s big air; freestyle skiing: women’s big air; short-track speedskating: mixed team relay; ski jumping: mixed team event; snowboarding: mixed team snowboard cross; and bobsled: women’s monobob. [66]
On Dec. 6, 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics: “The Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic games given [China’s] ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and other human rights abuses.” Australia, Canada, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom have also announced diplomatic boycotts. [64] [65]
The host cities for four future Games have been announced: Paris Summer 2024, Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo Winter 2026, Los Angeles Summer 2028, and Brisbane Summer 2032 (Winter 2030 has not yet been set). [1] [2] [62]
Click to jump to more on the history of the Olympics.
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 do not necessarily cause global warming.
Earth’s climate record shows that warming has preceded, not followed, a rise in CO2. According to a study published in Science, measurements of ice core samples showed that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study of the earth’s climate 460-445 million years ago which found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today. According to ecologist and former Director of Greenpeace International Patrick Moore, PhD, “there is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.”
**Background**
Average surface temperatures on earth have risen more than 2°F over the past 100 years. During this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. This site explores the debate on whether climate change is caused by humans (also known as anthropogenic climate change).
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts. They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate changes.
The con side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun’s heat and ocean currents. They say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science. Read more background…
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Scientists are able to test vaccines on humans volunteers.
Unlike animals used for research, humans are able to give consent to be used in testing and are a viable option when the need arises. The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic demonstrated that researchers can skip animal testing and go straight to observing how vaccines work in humans. One company working on a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna Therapeutics, worked on developing a vaccine using new technology: instead of being based on a weakened form of the virus, it was developed using a synthetic copy of the COVID-19 genetic code.
Because the company didn’t take the traditional path of isolating live samples of a virus, it was able to fast-track the development process. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, said, “I don’t think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting this to a clinical trial.”
**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 the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford housing.
According to a 2015 report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a worker must earn at least $15.50 an hour (over twice the federal minimum wage) to be able to afford to rent a “modest” one-bedroom apartment, and $19.35 for a two-bedroom unit (more than 2.5 times the minimum wage). The report stated: “In no state can an individual working a typical 40-hour work week at the federal minimum wage afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment for his or her family.” In California in 2015, even a person earning the then state minimum wage of $9 per hour would need to work 92 hours a week to afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment. In Rawlins County, Kansas, where rental costs are some of the most affordable in the country, a living wage including housing costs for one person with no dependents is estimated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to be $9.35, 25.3% higher than the federal minimum wage and the state minimum wage of Kansas.
**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 Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Handheld technological devices including tablets are associated with a range of health problems.
Handhelds contribute to Computer Vision Syndrome, which causes eyestrain, headaches, blurred vision, and dry eyes, according to the American Optometric Association. People who use mobile devices more often have a higher incidence of musculoskeletal disorders associated with repetitive strain on muscles, including carpal tunnel syndrome, neck pain (“text neck”), shoulder pain, and fibromyalgia.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Is Cell Phone Radiation Safe?'
**Argument**
Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation.
A 2016 meta-analysis of studies concerning cell phone use and cancer concluded in “children and teenagers, cell phone use is associated with the incidence of brain tumors.”
According to former American Academy of Pediatrics President Robert Block, MD, when cell phones are used by children, “the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull,” than for adults.
A July 2008 study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness.
Further, prenatal exposure to radiation from cell phones may increase the risk of ADHD and other behavior problems in children. According to a Nov. 2008 study, exposure to cell phone radiation while in the womb “was associated with behavior difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry.”
A Dec. 2010 study replicated those findings. [67] A Mar. 15, 2012 study found that mice exposed to cell phone radiation in the womb “were hyperactive and had impaired memory” as adults.
**Background**
|
# Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights.
Several international organizations have written about the long history of human rights abuses and repression in Cuba. At least 4,123 people were detained for political reasons in 2011, and an estimated 6,602 political detentions occurred in 2012.
The Congressional Research Service reported that there are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012 (although the Cuban government reports 57,337 prisoners) – among the highest in the world on a per capita basis.
The freedom of expression and right to assemble are severely restricted by the government. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act stated that the United States has a “moral obligation” to promote human rights in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the embargo is a bargaining tool.
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care is a necessary foundation of a just society.
The United States already provides free public education, public law enforcement, public road maintenance, and other public services to its citizens to promote a just society that is fair to everyone. Health care should be added to this list. Late US Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote that providing a right to health care “goes to the heart of my belief in a just society.” According to Norman Daniels, PhD, Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard University, “healthcare preserves for people the ability to participate in the political, social, and economic life of society. It sustains them as fully participating citizens.”
**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 allows teachers to advocate on behalf of students and disagree openly with school and district administrators.
Award-winning history teacher Kerry Sylvia said that without tenure, she would be afraid of being fired because of her public opposition to initiatives by administrators.
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
Focusing on uniforms takes attention away from finding genuine solutions to problems in education.
Spending time and effort implementing uniform policies may detract from more effective efforts to reduce crime in schools and boost student performance. More substantive improvements to public education could be achieved with smaller class sizes, tightened security, increased parental involvement, improved facilities, and other measures. Tom Houlihan, former Superintendent of Schools in Oxford, NC, stated that school uniforms “are a distraction from focusing on systematic and fundamental transformation to improve our schools.”
**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 College Be Free? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Taxpayers would spend billions to subsidize tuition, while other college costs remained high.
The estimated cost of Bernie Sanders’ free college program was $47 billion per year, and had states paying 33% of the cost, or $15.5 billion. According to David H. Feldman and Robert B. Archibald, both Professors of Economics at William & Mary College: “This will require tax increases, or it will force states to move existing resources into higher education and away from other state priorities like health care, prisons, roads and K-12 education.”
According to a 2016 Campaign for Free College report, states could lose between $77 million (Wyoming) and $5 billion (California) in tuition revenue from their state colleges and universities, and have to pay an additional $15,000 (Wyoming) to $55 million (New York) to subsidize a tuition-free plan.
Neal McCluskey, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, calculated that free college funded by tax dollars would cost every adult taxpayer $1,360 a year, or $77,500 over a lifetime. “Why should people who want to go to college get it paid for in part by people who pursue on-the-job training or other forms of noncollege education?,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, adding, “Indeed, why should anyone get a degree to increase their lifetime earnings on the backs of taxpayers?”
College costs have increased for of a number of reasons unrelated to tuition, including fancy dorms, amenities like lazy rivers and climbing walls, student services (such as healthcare), athletics, increases in administrative personnel, and cuts in state funding. [
**Background**
Free college programs come in different forms but generally refer to the government picking up the tab for tuition costs, while students pay for other expenses such as room and board. [50]
32 states and DC have some variation of free college programs. 9 states have statewide programs with “few eligibility limits,” while 23 have “[s]tate sponsored free college tuition programs with income, merit, geographical or programmatic limitations.” 18 states have no free college programs. [51] [52]
Tuition at public four-year institutions rose more than 31% between 2010 and 2020. When adjusted for inflation, college tuition has risen 747.8% since 1963. The average student loan debt more than doubled from the 1990s to the 2010s, according to the US Department of Education. About 16.8 million undergraduate students were projected to be enrolled in college in 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. [29] [53] [54]
College tuition is set by state policy or by each individual institution. Some colleges, especially federal land grant schools, had free tuition beginning in the 1860s. And some states had tuition-free policies at state colleges and universities for in-state students well into the twentieth century. According to Ronald Gordon Ehrenberg, Professor at Cornell University, “Public colleges and universities were often free at their founding in the United States, but over time, as public support was reduced or not increased sufficiently to compensate for their growth in students and costs (faculty and staff salaries, utilities etc.), they moved first to a low tuition and eventually higher tuition policy. About 2.9% of American 18- to 24-year olds went to college for the 1909-1910 school year, compared to 40% in 2020. [37] [38] [39] [55]
At the national level, free college programs have been in effect for military personnel since the 1944 GI Bill. At least 26 other countries have free or nearly free college tuition: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Panama, Poland, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay. [7] [8] [9] [42] [43] [44]
According to the 2022 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion, 63% of Americans supported free 4-year college and 66% supported free 2-year college. [56]
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Birth control pills are safer than many over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and common activities.
The Pill carries no risk of overdose or addiction and many women use the drug with no problem. About 10.5 million American women of reproductive age (15-49 years) used the birth control pill between 2017 and 2019. Of 141 countries for which data is available, 99 countries representing 80.29% of the global population have OTC birth control access.
Other OTC drugs carry more serious risks. Non-steroidal pain pills (NSAIDS) like ibuprofen can cause stomach bleeding. Sudafed can raise blood pressure. Tylenol can cause liver toxicity. Antihistamines like Benadryl can worsen glaucoma and kidney disease. Diet pills can cause irregular heart beats and raise blood pressure.
Eve Espey, Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of New Mexico, stated, “Nonsteroidal medicines kill far more people than birth-control pills.”
Further indicating the Pill’s safety: Plan B One-Step and other emergency contraception pills are available without a prescription and share the same active ingredient as daily birth control pills, levonorgestrel, but in a higher dose. The FDA has already indicated the safety of the drug by making Plan B available without prescription.
According to Bedsider, a nonprofit online birth control network run by doctors, “As medications go, the pill is very safe—safer than having a baby, driving, smoking, or taking daily aspirin.” Joe Speidel, Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences at Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health explains that pregnancy has a mortality rate about the same as car accidents–one in 8,300–while the risk of dying from birth control is about one in 1,667,000, about the same as dying from being struck by lightning.
**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…
|
# DACA & the DREAM Act - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
DACA sets a bad precedent for letting presidents circumvent the legislative branch.
President Trump noted in his announcement to rescind DACA that President Obama knew he shouldn’t make immigration policy unilaterally, “and yet that is exactly what he did, making an end-run around Congress and violating the core tenets that sustain our Republic.”
US Presidents shouldn’t be able to set legislative policy by executive orders; rather they should seek approval from Congress in accordance with the Constitution.
Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General of Louisiana, said, “No matter one’s views on the policy principles motivating DACA, we should all be able to agree that the executive cannot legislate by fiat… The core of DACA’s substantive unlawfulness is its grant of “lawful presence” to hundreds of thousands of aliens whom Congress has declared to be unlawfully present.”
**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.
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets help students learn more material faster.
Technology-based instruction can reduce the time students take to reach a learning objective by 30-80%, according to the US Department of Education and studies by the National Training and Simulation Association.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Is Artificial Intelligence Good for Society? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Artificial intelligence poses dangerous privacy risks.
Facial recognition technology can be used for passive, warrantless surveillance without knowledge of the person being watched. In Russia, facial recognition was used to monitor and arrest protesters who supported jailed opposition politician Alexei Navalny]. Russians fear a new facial recognition payment system for Moscow’s metro will increase these sorts of arrests.
Ring, the AI doorbell company, partnered with more than 400 police departments as of 2019, allowing the police to request footage from users’ doorbell cameras. While users were allowed to deny access to any footage, privacy experts fear the close relationship between Ring and the police could override customer privacy, especially when the doorbells frequently record others’ property.
AI also follows you on your weekly errands. Target used an algorithm to determine which shoppers were pregnant and sent them baby- and pregnancy-specific coupons in the mail, infringing on the medical privacy of those who may be pregnant, as well as those whose shopping patterns may just imitate pregnant people.
Moreover, artificial intelligence can be a godsend to crooks. In 2020, a group of 17 criminals defrauded $35 million from a bank in the United Arab Emirates using AI “deep voice” technology to impersonate an employee authorized to make money transfers. In 2019, thieves attempted to steal $240,000 using the same AI technology to impersonate the CEO of an energy firm in the United Kingdom.
**Background**
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the use of “computers and machines to mimic the problem-solving and decision-making capabilities of the human mind,” according to IBM. [1]
The idea of AI goes back at least 2,700 years. As Adrienne Mayor, research scholar, folklorist, and science historian at Stanford University, explained: “Our ability to imagine artificial intelligence goes back to the ancient times. Long before technological advances made self-moving devices possible, ideas about creating artificial life and robots were explored in ancient myths.” [2]
Mayor noted that the myths about Hephaestus, the Greek god of invention and blacksmithing, included precursors to AI. For example, Hephaestus created the giant bronze man, Talos, which had a mysterious life force from the gods called ichor. Hephaestus also created Pandora and her infamous box, as well as a set of automated servants made of gold that were given the knowledge of the gods. Mayor concluded, “Not one of those myths has a good ending once the artificial beings are sent to Earth. It’s almost as if the myths say that it’s great to have these artificial things up in heaven used by the gods. But once they interact with humans, we get chaos and destruction.” [2]
The modern version of AI largely began when Alan Turing, who contributed to breaking the Nazi’s Enigma code during World War II, created the Turing test to determine if a computer is capable of “thinking.” The value and legitimacy of the test have long been the subject of debate. [1] [3] [4]
The “Father of Artificial Intelligence,” John McCarthy, coined the term “artificial intelligence” when he, with Marvin Minsky and Claude Shannon, proposed a 1956 summer workshop on the topic at Dartmouth College. McCarthy defined artificial intelligence as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.” He later created the computer programming language LISP (which is still used in AI), hosted computer chess games against human Russian opponents, and developed the first computer with ”hand-eye” capability, all important building blocks for AI. [1] [5] [6] [7]
The first AI program designed to mimic how humans solve problems, Logic Theorist, was created by Allen Newell, J.C. Shaw, and Herbert Simon in 1955-1956. The program was designed to solve problems from Principia Mathematica (1910-13) written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. [1] [8]
In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt invented the Perceptron, which he claimed was “the first machine which is capable of having an original idea.” Though the machine was hounded by skeptics, it was later praised as the “foundations for all of this artificial intelligence.” [1] [9]
As computers became cheaper in the 1960s and 70s, AI programs such as Joseph Weizenbaum’s ELIZA flourished, and US government agencies including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began to fund AI-related research. But computers were still too weak to manage the language tasks researchers asked of them. Another influx of funding in the 1980s and early 90s furthered the research, including the invention of expert systems by Edward Feigenbaum and Joshua Lederberg. But progress again waned with a drop in government funding. [10]
In 1997, Gary Kasparov, reigning world chess champion and grand master, was defeated by IBM’s Deep Blue AI computer program, a huge step for AI researchers. More recently, advances in computer storage limits and speeds have opened new avenues for AI research and implementation, such as aiding in scientific research and forging new paths in medicine for patient diagnosis, robotic surgery, and drug development. [1] [10] [11] [12]
Now, artificial intelligence is used for a variety of everyday implementations including facial recognition software, online shopping algorithms, search engines, digital assistants like Siri and Alexa, translation services, automated safety functions on cars (and the promised self-driving cars of the future), cybersecurity, airport body scanning security, poker playing strategy, and fighting disinformation on social media, among others. [13] [58]
|
# Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?'
**Argument**
Alcohol consumption should be based on age of license (legality), rather than age of majority (adulthood).
Many rights in the United States are conferred on citizens at age 21 or older. A person cannot legally purchase a handgun, gamble in a casino (in most states), or adopt a child until age 21. No one can rent a car (from most companies) at age 25, or run for President until age 35. Drinking should be similarly restricted due to the responsibility required to self and others.
Purchasing and smoking cigarettes and vaping e-cigarettes are similarly regulated. The age of license was raised to 21 on Dec. 20, 2019. Robin Mermelstein, Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explained, “I think that you would be able to see lots of improvements in reduction of tobacco use among teens, all of which is good because the longer you delay any kind of initiation, the less likelihood there is to develop addiction and the less likely it is that use will escalate.” The same goes for alcohol.
Other things are similarly regulated throughout life. Kids can’t play Tee Ball until they’re four and basketball players can’t play for the NBA until they’re 19. In most states, teens can’t obtain a restricted license until they’re 16. Senior citizens can’t collect social security until age 62. Rarely are these age restrictions arbitrary. [71] [72] [73] [74]
**Background**
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Law enforcement uses social media to catch and prosecute criminals.
73% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think “social media helps solve crimes more quickly.” A survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that 85% of police departments use social media to solve crimes. The New York Police Department was one of the first forces to add a Twitter tracking unit and use social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. Social media sites have helped in the prosecution and conviction of a number of crimes, including: a professional soccer player charged with inappropriate activity with a minor in the UK in 2016, a gang charged with the beating of a gay couple in Philadelphia, PA, in 2014, and rioting hockey fans in Vancouver (Canada) in 2011.
**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…
|
# Filibuster - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The filibuster is an important safeguard against political extremism and corporate influence.
The Senate has always purposefully been the slower chamber of Congress, the one that “was not going to simply ride popular waves when considering legislative action.” The filibuster “frankly is one of the last safeguards against extremist legislators from either side of the aisle pushing through laws that the vast majority of the country would oppose,” according to Pete Weichlein, CEO of The Former Members of Congress Association.
Eliminating “the filibuster would only ramp up partisan acrimony and increase the level of fear and anxiety around American elections,” argued David French, Senior Editor of The Dispatch. The filibuster protects against both minoritarian rule, in which the minority party takes and keeps control contrary to the wishes of the majority of citizens, and majoritarian domination, in which the voices and liberties of the minority of citizens could be eliminated. In both cases, the more extreme end of each party would likely be in control, rather than those willing to work across the aisle. While working through compromise may be more difficult, that is the work of democracy.
David Super, Law Professor at Georgetown University, explained another advantage of maintaining the current rule: “The filibuster also serves as a crucial counterweight against big-money politics. Holding a majority to block legislation backed by the corporate elite is difficult when millions of dollars in campaign contributions tempt legislators to vote with irresponsible banks, avaricious petrochemical companies or reckless lumber interests. Forty-one votes to block radical deregulation [by preventing a block of 60 senators from enacting cloture and ending a filibuster] is a much more achievable goal.” Thus, the filibuster protects citizen voices against powerful corporations and unscrupulous Senators who might bow to the influence of corporate lobbyists rather than represent their constituents faithfully.
**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 Abortion Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.
Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to “,” Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, “abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem.”
Tobin previously declared legal abortion a “brutalization of the American heart” on par with the “dehumanization of the undocumented” immigrants.
Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: “Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we’d like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past.”
As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.
“[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for manipulation,” according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.”
**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…
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
Gold retains a value that has been recognized across the globe throughout history, and a gold standard self-regulates to match the supply of money to the need for it.
American paper money is a “fiat” currency that can be printed without limit and has no real value – its value is only maintained by the “full faith and credit” of the government. Gold has real value due to its beauty, usefulness, and scarcity. Humanity has recognized the value of gold as a medium of exchange dating back to 550 BC, when the King of Lydia (modern day Turkey) began minting gold coins. Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, stated gold “retains an intrinsic, stable value better than anything else.”
Since gold is a finite natural material and must be mined and processed at a significant cost, it tends to be produced at levels consistent with demand. Under a gold standard, creating more currency requires obtaining more gold, which raises gold’s market price and stimulates increased mining. More gold is then used to back more money until a point when currency levels are adequate, the price of gold levels out, and mining is scaled back accordingly. It is a self-regulating system. Under a fiat money system the production of money has no natural self-regulation mechanism.
Over the 179 years the United States was on some form of a gold or metallic standard (1792-1971), the economy grew an average of 3.9% each year. Since 1971, under a fiat money standard not backed by gold in any way, economic growth has averaged 2.8% per year. This lower growth rate translates into an economy that is about $8 trillion dollars smaller than it would have been had the gold standard not been abandoned in 1971.
**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…
|
# Immigrant Sanctuary Cities - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Sanctuary cities encourage better relationships between undocumented immigrants and law enforcement.
Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones says undocumented immigrant cooperation with police is statistically proven to make sanctuary cities safer.
Murder rates in San Francisco, one of the oldest sanctuary cities, were at their lowest in 2014 (with 45 murders) since the 1989 “City of Refuge” ordinance was enacted.
San Francisco’s murder rate is lower than comparable non-sanctuary cities, with 5.75 murders per 100,000 residents in 2013 compared to 11.39 in Dallas and 15.17 in Indianapolis.
70% of undocumented immigrants are less likely to report being the victim of a crime, and 45% of Latinos are less likely report crimes or voluntarily offer information about a crime for fear police officers would about their immigration status. The fear of being asked about immigration status also makes people less likely to cooperate with investigations.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While there is no official legal definition of “sanctuary city,” the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants, often with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. [2]
Some argue that sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, New York, and Chicago should not receive federal funding because they are not enforcing federal immigration laws. Others say that sanctuary city policies protect both citizens and undocumented immigrants.
There are 11 states, 40 cites, and 143 counties listed as sanctuary jurisdictions by the Center for Immigration Studies as of Mar. 22, 2021. [32]
Florida banned sanctuary cities on June 14, 2019, joining at least 11 other states with similar rules, according to CNN. Representatives in other states have since pushed for sanctuary cities bans, including New Hampshire, Georgia, and Oklahoma. [22] [24] [25] [26]
Sanctuary cities grew from the Sanctuary Movement the late 1980s and early 1990s in which religious congregations began helping undocumented Salvadorian and Guatemalan families settle in the United States. They acted in direct defiance of US immigration authorities, who denied over 90% of asylum requests by immigrants fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. The sanctuary activists believed that the federal government was breaking international and domestic refugee law. [1] [2]
Los Angeles was the first city to enact sanctuary policies, with a focus on undocumented immigrants already in the United States. The chief of police enacted Special Order No. 40 on Nov. 27, 1979, stating that police officers should not inquire about immigration status and should provide city services to everyone equally. San Francisco followed suit, passing the “City of Refuge” resolution in 1985 and “City of Refuge” ordinance in 1989, requiring that all city employees stop immigration policing and provide city services to all residents regardless of immigration status. [2] [12] [29]
The Trump administration held that the federal government should be able to withhold funds from sanctuary cities for their non-compliance with federal laws. The Biden administration reversed that policy. [22] [27] [28] [30][31]
|
# Should College Be Free? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Everyone deserves the opportunity to get a college education.
Jamie Merisotis, President and CEO of the Lumina Foundation, stated, “A dramatic increase in the number of Americans with college credentials is absolutely essential for our economic, social and cultural development as a country.”
The rapid rise of tuition has limited access to higher education, which is essential in today’s workforce: three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations now call for education beyond high school, according to the US Department of Education. College graduates earn $570,000 more than a high school graduate over a lifetime, on average, and they have lower unemployment rates. Students from low- and moderate-income families are unable to afford as many as 95% of American colleges. [
Max Page, Professor of Architecture, and Dan Clawson, Professor of Sociology, both at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, stated: “A century ago high school was becoming a necessity, not a luxury; today the same is happening to college. If college is essential for building a career and being a full participant in our democracy as high school once was, shouldn’t it be free, paid for by public dollars, and treated as a right of all members of our country?”
**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]
|
# Reparations for Slavery - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The idea of reparations is demeaning to African Americans and would further divide the country along race lines.
Reparations require the country to put a literal price on the generational traumas of slavery. How much is one slave’s suffering worth to the country? What is the compensation for several generations of enslaved ancestors? Determining those numbers could insult descendants and other Americans alike.
Coleman Hughes, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, stated in 2019 testimony before Congress: “If we were to pay reparations today, we would only divide the country further, making it harder to build the political coalitions required to solve the problems facing black people today; we would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors; and we would turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction — from a union between citizens into a lawsuit between plaintiffs and defendants.”
Hughes continued, “[P]aying reparations to all descendants of slaves is a mistake … [because] the people who were owed for slavery are no longer here, and we’re not entitled to collect on their debts. Reparations, by definition, are only given to victims. So the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent.”
Former NFL player Burgess Owens expands on the idea of victimhood: “At the core of the reparation movement is a divisive and demeaning view of both races. It grants to the white race a wicked superiority, treating them as an oppressive people too powerful for black Americans to overcome. It brands blacks as hapless victims devoid of the ability, which every other culture possesses, to assimilate and progress. Neither label is earned…. It is their divisive message that marks the black race as forever broken, as a people whose healing comes only through the guilt, pity, profits and benevolence of the white race.”
Meanwhile, if reparations were paid, the country’s problems with racial inequality would not be solved and may actually be exacerbated.
Columnist Ron Chimelis explained, “Angry white Americans will say, ‘Stop whining about racism in modern America. Stand for the flag of the country that just sent you a check. We paid you, that’s it and we’re done.’ But we wouldn’t be done, because racism certainly does still exist in America. It’s more subtle than slavery, and it won’t be solved only through legislation because you can’t entirely legislate basic human respect.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Reparations are payments (monetary and otherwise) given to a group that has suffered harm. For example, Japanese-Americans who were interned in the United States during World War II have received reparations. [1]
Arguments for reparations for slavery date to at least Jan. 12, 1865, when President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Union General William T. Sherman met with 20 African American ministers in Savannah, Georgia. Stanton and Sherman asked 12 questions, including: “State in what manner you think you can take care of yourselves, and how can you best assist the Government in maintaining your freedom.” Appointed spokesperson, Baptist minister, and former slave Garrison Frazier replied, “The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor … and we can soon maintain ourselves and have something to spare … We want to be placed on land until we are able to buy it and make it our own.” [2] [3]
On Jan. 16, 1865, Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15 that authorized 400,000 acres of coastal land from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida to be divided into forty-acre plots and given to newly freed slaves for their exclusive use. The land had been confiscated by the Union from white slaveholders during the Civil War. Because Sherman later gave orders for the Army to lend mules to the freedmen, the phrase “forty acres and a mule” became popular. [1] [4]
However, shortly after Vice President Andrew Johnson became president following Abraham Lincoln’s assassination on Apr. 14, 1865, he worked to rescind the order and revert the land back to the white landowners. At the end of the Civil War, the federal government had confiscated 850,000 acres of former Confederates’ land. By mid-1867, all but 75,000 acres had been returned to the Confederate owners. [1] [4] [5]
Other efforts and arguments have been made to institute or deny reparations to descendants of slaves since the 1860s, and the issue remains divisive and hotly debated. An Oct. 2019 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found 29% of Americans overall approved of reparations. When separated by race, the poll showed 74% of black Americans, 44% of Hispanics, and 15% of white Americans were in favor of reparations. [6]
While Americans generally think of reparations as monetary, Michelle Bachelet, MD, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in the office’s June 1, 2021 annual report, stated: “Measures taken to address the past should seek to transform the future. Structures and systems that were designed and shaped by enslavement, colonialism and successive racially discriminatory policies and systems must be transformed. Reparations should not only be equated with financial compensation. They also comprise measures aimed at restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, including, for example, formal acknowledgment and apologies, memorialization and institutional and educational reforms. Reparations are essential for transforming relationships of discrimination and inequity and for mutually committing to and investing in a stronger, more resilient future of dignity, equality and non-discrimination for all. Reparatory justice requires a multipronged approach that is grounded in international human rights law. Reparations are one element of accountability and redress. For every violation, there should be repair of the harms caused through adequate, effective and prompt reparation. Reparations help to promote trust in institutions and the social reintegration of people whose rights may have been discounted, providing recognition to victims and survivors as rights holders.” [46]
President Obama outlined the political difficulty of reparations on his podcast with Bruce Springsteen, “Renegades: Born in the U.S.A.” He said, “So, if you ask me theoretically: ‘Are reparations justified?’ The answer is yes. There’s not much question that the wealth of this country, the power of this country was built in significant part — not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it — but a large portion of it was built on the backs of slaves. What I saw during my presidency was the politics of white resistance and resentment, the talk of welfare queens and the talk of the undeserving poor and the backlash against affirmative action… all that made the prospect of actually proposing any kind of coherent, meaningful reparations program struck me as, politically, not only a non-starter but potentially counterproductive.” [47]
An Oct. 2021 Gallup Center on Black Voices survey found 62% of American adults believe the federal government has an obligation to reduce the effects of slavery; 37% believe the government has no such obligation. Of those who support government action, 65% believe all black Americans should benefit, while 32% believe only the descendants of enslaved people should benefit. [48]
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets may be too difficult for less technologically savvy teachers to use.
Despite the proliferation of digital learning, the US Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan found that “teacher preparation and professional development programs are failing to prepare teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom.” In a survey of current K-12 teachers by Deloitte, 41% of respondents said that lack of teacher-training in the use of educational technology was one of the biggest barriers to incorporating digital learning in the classroom. A survey by Schoology found that only about half of K-12 schools worldwide provide their staff with professional development resources to aid the use of technology in classrooms.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media helps empower business women.
Being able to connect on social networking sites gives business women a support group not readily found offline, where female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are outnumbered by male CEOs 474 to 26. Many social media sites are dominated by women: 80% of Pinterest users, 70% of Snapchat users, 68% of Instagram users, 64% of Twitter users, and 58% of Facebook users, are women. Business women use Twitter chats to support each other, give and receive peer knowledge, and have guest “speakers” share expert knowledge. One.org helps African women entrepreneurs connect on social media to grow their businesses.
**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…
|
# Pokémon Go - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
There are mental and physical health benefits from playing the game.
Walking around is necessary to play the game, and users are getting physical health benefits from the exercise. 63-year-old Robin Tarry told the BBC that the game has encouraged he and his wife, Pauline, to walk about 30 miles a week, helping him lose about 42 pounds and manage his diabetes.
One user told BuzzFeed, “I have struggled with motivation and energy since I was 9, when I developed severe depression… But as soon as I got Pokémon Go I was able to leave the house, and I walked outside for hours and suddenly found myself enjoying it. I had the instant rush of dopamine whenever I caught a Pokémon, and I wanted to keep going. Then today and yesterday I purposely put myself in social situations, going to the mall, just to play.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Pokémon Go had more than 21 million daily active users in the United States in its debut week in July 2016, becoming the most popular US mobile game ever. It has surpassed social media apps such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Twitter for daily use on Android devices. [1] [2] The basic premise of the game is that players try to capture Pokémon in a kind of scavenger hunt that uses the GPS on their mobile phones while walking around in the real world. The game’s slogan is “Gotta catch ’em all.” [3]
As of July 8, 2020, Pokémon Go was still the most popular location-based game with 576.7 million unique downloads globally in the game’s first four years. The game is estimated to have earned $3.6 billion worldwide since 2016, with $445.3 million in the first half of 2020 during COVID-19 (coronavirus) lockdowns, via micro-transactions within the game. [18]
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms create a level playing field among students, reducing peer pressure and bullying.
When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits can be eliminated. Research by the Schoolwear Association found that 83% of teachers thought “a good school uniform… could prevent bullying based on appearance or economic background.” Arminta Jacobson, Founder and Director of the Center for Parent Education at the University of North Texas, stated that uniforms put “all kids on the same playing field in terms of their appearance. I think it probably gives them a sense of belonging and a feeling of being socially accepted.”
**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 Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.
Some chemicals that are ineffective on (or harmful to) animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was “almost shelved” because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. A report on Slate.com stated that a “source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans.”
**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…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games.
Kevin McCarthy, US Representative (R-CA), stated: “But the idea of these video games that dehumanize individuals to have a game of shooting individuals and others – I’ve always felt that is a problem for future generations and others. We’ve watched from studies shown before of what it does to individuals. When you look at these photos of how it [mass shootings] took place, you can see the actions within video games and others.”
Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine High School shooting (1999); James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training.
An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends “inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes.”
Dan Patrick, Republican Lieutenant Governor of Texas, stated: “We’ve always had guns, always had evil, but I see a video game industry that teaches young people to kill.”
**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…
|
# GMO Pros and Cons - Should Genetically Modified Organisms Be Grown?'
**Argument**
Genetically modified (GM) crops have not been proven safe for human consumption through human clinical trials.
Scientists still don’t know what the long-term effects of significant GMO consumption could be. Robert Gould, pathologist at the UC San Francisco School of Medicine, said, “the contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime.”
Genetically modified ingredients are in 70-80% of food eaten in the United States, even though there haven’t been any long term clinical trials on humans to determine whether GMO foods are safe.
According to the Center for Food Safety, a US-based nonprofit organization, “Each genetic insertion creates the added possibility that formerly nontoxic elements in the food could become toxic.” The group says that resistance to antibiotics, cancer, and suppressed immune function are among potential risks of genetic modification using viral DNA.
Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, explained, “Anyone who knows about genetics knows that there’s a lot we don’t understand. We’re always discovering new things or finding out that things we believed aren’t actually right.” Because of the lack of testing, we may not have found the particular dangers in GMO foods yet, but that doesn’t make them safe to consume.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDid You Know?Discussion QuestionsTake Action
Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. The earliest form of selective breeding were simple and have persisted: farmers save and plant only the seeds of plants that produced the most tasty or largest (or otherwise preferable) results. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered and developed the basics of DNA by crossbreeding peas. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [1] [2] [53] [55]
To create a GMO plant, scientists follow these basic steps over several years:
Identify the desired trait and find an animal or plant with that trait. For example, scientists were looking to make corn more insect-resistant. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt), that naturally produces an insecticide commonly used in organic agriculture.Copy the specific gene for the desired trait.Insert the specific gene into the DNA of the plant scientists want to change. In the above example, the insecticide gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was inserted into corn.Grow the new plant and perform tests for safety and the desired trait. [55]
According to the Genetic Literacy Project, “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops, allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GMO. [58]
In the United States, the health and environmental safety standards for GM crops are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Between 1985 and Sep. 2013, the USDA approved over 17,000 different GM crops for field trials, including varieties of corn, soybean, potato, tomato, wheat, canola, and rice, with various genetic modifications such as herbicide tolerance; insect, fungal, and drought resistance; and flavor or nutrition enhancement. [44] [45]
In 1994, the “FLAVR SAVR” tomato became the first genetically modified food to be approved for public consumption by the FDA. The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life. [51]
Recently, the term “bioengineered” food has come into popularity, under the argument that almost all food has been “genetically modified” via selective breeding or other basic growing methods. Bioengineered food refers specifically to food that has undergone modification using rDNA technology, but does not include food genetically modified by basic cross-breeding or selective breeding. As of Jan. 10, 2022, the USDA listed 12 bioengineered products available in the US: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet. [56] [57]
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard established mandatory national standards for labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. The Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 and compliance became mandatory on Jan. 1, 2022. [46]
49% of US adults believe that eating GMO foods are “worse” for one’s health, 44% say they are “neither better nor worse,” and 5% believe they are “better,” according to a 2018 Pew Research Center report. [9]
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law.
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act.
**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…
|
# Private Prisons - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Private prisons can transform the broken government-run prison system.
As Adrian Moore, PhD, Vice President of policy at Reason Foundation, explained, “private prisons are a tool, and like all tools, you can use them well or use them poorly.”
Examples of using private prisons well include some private prisons in Australia and New Zealand that have performance-based contracts with the government, The prisons earn “bonuses for doing better than government prisons at cutting recidivism. They get an even bigger bonus if they beat the government at reducing recidivism among their indigenous populations. And prison companies are charged for what the government deems as unacceptable events like riots, escapes and unnatural deaths.”
As the Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation at Georgetown University explained, by implementing those sorts of contracts, “the private sector was responsible for designing the solution that would achieve the desired social outcome.”
Oliver Brousse, Chief Executive of the John Laing Investment Group, which built a prison in New Zealand with such a contract, explained, “The prison is designed for rehabilitation. The strength of these public-private partnerships is that they bring the best practices and innovation from all over the world, allowing local authorities to benefit from not only private capital but also from the best people and best practices from other countries.”
**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]
|
# Space Colonization - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Humans have a right and a moral duty to save our species from suffering and extinction. Colonizing space is one method of doing so.
Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, stated, “I think there is a strong humanitarian argument for making life multi-planetary, in order to safeguard the existence of humanity in the event that something catastrophic were to happen, in which case being poor or having a disease would be irrelevant, because humanity would be extinct. It would be like, ‘Good news, the problems of poverty and disease have been solved, but the bad news is there aren’t any humans left.’… I think we have a duty to maintain the light of consciousness, to make sure it continues into the future.”
According to some philosophies, humans are the only beings capable of morality, and, thus, preserving humanity is the highest moral imperative. Following from that premise, Brian Patrick Green, Director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, concluded, “Because space settlement gives humankind the opportunity to significantly raise the chances of survival for our species, it is therefore a moral imperative to settle space as quickly as possible.”
Some theorists, including Gonzalo Munevar, PhD, interdisciplinary Professor Emeritus at Lawrence Technological University, believe colonizing space will increase clean energy on Earth, provide access to the solar system’s resources, and increase knowledge of space and Earth. The benefits to humanity created by the resources and knowledge “create a moral obligation to colonize space.”
Sheri Wells-Jensen, PhD, Associate Professor of English at Bowling Green State University, argues that the moral imperative goes even further than simple preservation: “[W]e have a moral obligation to improve: that is, to colonize yes, but to do it better: to actively unthink systems of oppression that we know exist. To spread ourselves without thought or care would probably result in failure: more planets spiraling toward global warming or space settlements filled with social unrest.”
**Background**
While humans have long thought of gods living in the sky, the idea of space travel or humans living in space dates to at least 1610 after the invention of the telescope when German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote to Italian astronomer Galileo: “Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travellers, maps of the celestial bodies.” [1]
In popular culture, space travel dates back to at least the mid-1600s when Cyrano de Bergerac first wrote of traveling to space in a rocket. Space fantasies flourished after Jules Verne’s “From Earth to the Moon” was published in 1865, and again when RKO Pictures released a film adaptation, A Trip to the Moon, in 1902. Dreams of space settlement hit a zenith in the 1950s with Walt Disney productions such as “Man and the Moon,” and science fiction novels including Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles (1950). [2] [3] [4]
Fueling popular imagination at the time was the American space race with Russia, amid which NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) was formed in the United States on July 29, 1958, when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law. After the Russians put the first person, Yuri Gagarin, in space on Apr. 12, 1961, NASA put the first people, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on the Moon in July 1969. What was science fiction began to look more like possibility. Over the next six decades, NASA would launch space stations, land rovers on Mars, and orbit Pluto and Jupiter, among other accomplishments. Launched by President Trump in 2017, NASA’s ongoing Artemis program intends to return humans to the Moon by 2024, landing the first woman on the lunar surface. The lunar launch is more likely to happen in 2025, due to a lag in space suit technology and delays with the Space Launch System rocket, the Orion capsule, and the lunar lander[5] [6] [7] [8] [36]
As of June 17, 2021, three countries had space programs with human space flight capabilities: China, Russia, and the United States. India’s planned human space flights have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they may launch in 2023. However, NASA ended its space shuttle program in 2011 when the shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 21. NASA astronauts going into space afterward rode along with Russians until 2020 when SpaceX took over and first launched NASA astronauts into space on Apr. 23, 2021. SpaceX is a commercial space travel business owned by Elon Musk that has ignited commercial space travel enthusiasm and the idea of “space tourism.” Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin have generated similar excitement. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Richard Branson launched himself, two pilots, and three mission specialists into space from New Mexico for a 90-minute flight on the Virgin Galactic Unity 22 mission on July 11, 2021. The flight marked the first time that passengers, rather than astronauts, went into space. [14] [15]
Jeff Bezos followed on July 20, 2021, accompanied by his brother, Mark, and both the oldest and youngest people to go to space: 82-year-old Wally Funk, a female pilot who tested with NASA in the 1960s but never flew, and Oliver Daemen, an 18-year-old student from the Netherlands. The fully automated, unpiloted Blue Origin New Shepard rocket launched on the 52nd anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing and was named after Alan Shepard, who was the first American to travel into space on May 5, 1961. [16] [17]
On Apr. 8, 2022, a SpaceX capsule launched, carrying three paying customers and a former NASA astronaut on a roundtrip to the International Space Station (ISS). Mission AX-1 docked at the ISS on Apr. 9 with former NASA astronaut, current Axiom Space employee, and mission commander, Michael Lopez-Alegría, Israeli businessman Eytan Stibbe, Canadian investor Mark Pathy, and American real estate magnate Larry Connor. The group returned to Earth on Apr. 25, 2022. While this is not the first time paying customers or non-astronauts have traveled to ISS (Russia has sold Soyuz seats), this is the first American mission and the first with no government astronaut corps members. [38] [39]
The International Space Station has been continuously occupied by groups of six astronauts since Nov. 2000, for a total of 243 astronauts from 19 countries as of May 13, 2021. Astronauts spend an average of 182 days (about six months) aboard the ISS. As of Feb. 2020, Russian Valery Polyakov had spent the longest continuous time in space (437.7 days in 1994-1995 on space station Mir), followed by Russian Sergei Avdeyev (379.6 days in 1998-1999 on Mir), Russians Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov (365 days in 1987-1988 on Mir), American Mark Vande Hei (355 days on ISS) Russian Mikhail Kornienko and American Scott Kelly (340.4 days in 2015-2016 on Mir and ISS respectively), and American Christina Koch (328 days in 2019-20 in ISS). [18] [19] [40]
In Jan. 2022, Space Entertainment Enterprise (SEE) announced plans for a film production studio and a sports arena in space. The module will be named SEE-1 and will dock on Axiom Station, which is the commercial wing of the International Space Station. SEE plans to host film and sports events, as well as content creation by Dec. 2024. [37]
In a 2018 poll, 50% of Americans believed space tourism will be routine for ordinary people by 2068. 32% believed long-term habitable space colonies will be built by 2068. But 58% said they were definitely or probably not interested in going to space. And the majority (63%) stated NASA’s top priority should be monitoring Earth’s climate, while only 18% said sending astronauts to Mars should be the highest priority and only 13% would prioritize sending astronauts to the Moon. [20]
The most common ideas for space colonization include: settling Earth’s Moon, building on Mars, and constructing free-floating space stations.
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
OTC birth control pills would decrease birth control choice and access.
Vanessa Cullins, obstetrician-gynecologist, noted that there were over 40 brands of birth control pills and “not every formulation will go over the counter.” By making only a few choices available OTC, women are more likely to follow the path of least resistance and choose those available at a drug store rather than by prescription, even if it isn’t the right variety of birth control for them.
The FDA-approved contraceptive methods that would not be available over-the-counter include IUDs (both copper and with progestin), the implantable rod, and shots such as Depo-Provera, plus sterilization procedures, all of which the FDA stated are more effective than the Pill.
Journalist Sarah Elizabeth Richards noted, “Women visiting their pharmacists won’t have access to the most reliable forms of birth control on the market because those methods, such as implantable rods or intrauterine devices (IUDs), will still require a trip to a doctor’s office.”
And, even within birth control pill brands, choice will be limited. Most effort is focused on making the progestin-only (also called POP or minipills) OTC, rather than the estrogen and progestin pills (also called combination pills). Only about 0.4% of American reproductive-aged women take progestin-only birth control pills, or about 2% of all women who take the Pill.
**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 the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
A gold standard would limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to help the economy out of recessions and depressions, and to address unemployment.
Under the current fiat money system (money not backed by a physician commodity such as gold) the Federal Reserve can use monetary policy to respond to financial crises by lowering interest rates during a recession, raising them during a period of inflation, and injecting money into the economy when necessary. A gold standard would severely hamper the Federal Reserve from performing these functions.
After the 2008 financial crash, the Federal Reserve’s TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) created $700 billion to bail out financial institutions and stabilize the economy. According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, PhD, without that intervention a “powerful deflationary forc[e]” would have been created. Without the Federal Reserve’s intervention, the 2008 crash could have led to another Great Depression.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, PhD, stated a gold standard “means swearing that no matter how bad unemployment gets you are not going to do anything about it using monetary policy.” Under our current fiat money system, the Federal Reserve can expand the US money supply by purchasing treasury bonds and the government can use this money to help put the unemployed to work through public spending as the Obama administration did with the $787 billion fiscal stimulus. The 2009 Obama stimulus prevented the loss of an estimated three million jobs.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve took similar measures: lowering interest rates to near zero, supported financial market functioning, corporations, and small businesses, and cushioning money markets. Under a gold standard these stimulus actions could not have occurred.
**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…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans.
70% of college graduates had access to employer-provided health insurance compared to 50% of high school graduates in 2008. 70% of college graduates 25 years old and older had access to retirement plans in 2008 compared to 65% of associate’s degree holders, 55% of high school graduates, and 30% of people who did not complete high school.
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care could lower the quality and availability of disease screening and treatment.
In countries with a universal right to health care certain disease treatment outcomes are worse than the United States. The US 5-year survival rate for all cancers is 67%, compared to 60% in Canada and 54% in the United Kingdom. Annually, there are fewer cancer deaths per 100,000 people in the United States than in Australia, France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Out of OECD nations, the United States is ranked at number two for breast cancer survival, behind only Sweden, and at number three for stroke survival, behind only Japan and South Korea. Statistics show that US cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal (bowel) cancer are higher than those in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
**Background**
27.5 million people in the United States (8.5% of the US population) do not have health insurance. Among the 91.5% who do have health insurance, 67.3% have private insurance while 34.4% have government-provided coverage through programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. Employer-based health insurance is the most common type of coverage, applying to 55.1% of the US population. The United States is the only nation among the 37 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations that does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right.
Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in one of the richest nations on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service.
Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual’s responsibility, not the government’s role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to larger government debt and deficits. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Colleges and universities use social media to recruit and retain students.
96.6% of four-year institutions use Facebook to recruit students, 83.4% use Twitter, and 79.3% use YouTube. Colleges and universities use Facebook apps and other social media tools to increase student retention. Social networking sites are also being used to give students a support system at community colleges that consist mostly of commuter students.
**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…
|
# Internet & "Stupidity" - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Virtually all new technologies, the internet included, have been feared, and those fears have been largely unfounded.
Many technologies considered commonplace today were thought to be extremely dangerous upon their invention. For example, trains caused worry among some “that women’s bodies were not designed to go at 50 miles an hour,” and so their “uteruses would fly out of [their] bodies as they were accelerated to that speed.” Others feared that bodies, regardless of gender, would simply melt at such a high speed. Information technologies have not escaped the centuries-old technophobia.
Greek philosopher Socrates was afraid that writing would transplant knowledge and memory.
The printing press created a “confusing and harmful abundance of books” that, according to philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm, “might lead to a fall back into barbarism.”
Similarly, the newspaper was going to socially isolate people as they read news alone instead of gathering at the church’s pulpit to get information.
The telegraph was “too fast for the truth,” and its “constant diffusion of statements in snippets” was bemoaned.
The telephone was feared to create a “race of left-eared people—that is, of people who hear better with the left than with the right ear.” We would become “nothing but transparent heaps of jelly to each other,” allowing basic manners to degrade.
Schools were going to “exhaust the children’s brains and nervous systems with complex and multiple studies, and ruin their bodies by protracted imprisonment,” according to an 1883 medical journal. Excessive academic study by anyone was a sure path to mental illness.
The radio was “loud and unnecessary noise,” and children had “developed the habit of dividing attention between the humdrum preparation of their school assignments and the compelling excitement of the loudspeaker.”
Television was going to be the downfall of radio, conversation, reading, and family life.
Calculators were going to destroy kids’ grasp of math concepts.
The VCR was going to be the end of the film industry. Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) Jack Valenti complained to Congress, “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the [serial killer] Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.”
Clinical and neuropsychologist Vaughn Bell, PhD, DClinPsy, noted, “Worries about information overload are as old as information itself, with each generation reimagining the dangerous impacts of technology on mind and brain. From a historical perspective, what strikes home is not the evolution of these social concerns, but their similarity from one century to the next, to the point where they arrive anew with little having changed except the label.”
**Background**
In a 2008 article for The Atlantic, Nicholas Carr asked, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr argued that the internet as a whole, not just Google, has been “chipping away [at his] capacity for concentration and contemplation.” He was concerned that the internet was “reprogramming us.” [1]
However, Carr also noted that we should “be skeptical of [his] skepticism,” because maybe he’s “just a worrywart.” He explained, “Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine.” [1]
The article, and Carr’s subsequent book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010, revised in 2020), ignited a continuing debate on and off the internet about how the medium is changing the ways we think, how we interact with text and each other, and the very fabric of society as a whole. [1]
ProCon asked readers their thoughts on how the internet affects their brains and whether online information is reliable and trustworthy. While 52.7% agreed or strongly agreed that being on the internet has caused a decline in their attention span and ability to concentrate, only 21.5% thought the internet caused them to lose the ability to perform simple tasks like reading a map. [41]
Only 18% believed online information was true. Nearly 60% admitted difficulty in determining if information online was truthful. And 77% desired a more effective way of managing and filtering information on the Internet to differentiate between fact, opinion, and overt disinformation. [41]
Between Apr. 28, 2021, and Sep. 1, 2022, the survey garnered 15,740 responses. To see the complete results, click here. To add your thoughts, complete the survey. [41]
|
# Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended.
Cubans are denied access to technology, medicine, affordable food, and other goods that could be available to them if the United States lifted the embargo.
A report by the American Association for World Health found that doctors in Cuba have access to less than 50% of the drugs on the world market, and that food shortages led to a 33% drop in caloric intake between 1989 and 1993. The report stated, “it is our expert medical opinion that the US embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba.”
Amnesty International reported in 2011 that “treatments for children and young people with bone cancer… [and] antiretroviral drugs used to treat children with HIV/AIDS” were not readily available with the embargo in place because “they were commercialized under US patents.”
In Apr. 2020, Cuba reported that the US embargo was preventing the import of important medical supplies and equipment, as well as other essentials. Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodríguez tweeted that the embargo was “the main obstacle to purchase the medicines, equipment and material required to confront the pandemic.”
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity.
When people have access to health care, they live healthier lives and miss work less, allowing them to contribute more to the economy. A study by researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania showed that workers with health insurance miss an average of 4.7 fewer work days than employees without health insurance. According to an Institute of Medicine report, the US economy loses $65-$130 billion annually as a result of diminished worker productivity, due to poor health and premature deaths, among the uninsured. In a speech, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim stated that all nations should provide a right to health care “to help foster economic growth.”
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care.
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say there is a right to health care. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to “promote the general welfare,” not to provide it. The Bill of Rights lists a number of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon, not material goods or services that the government must provide. According to former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), “you have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty and you have a right to keep what you earn in a free country… You do not have the right to services or things.”
**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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status.
According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: “All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven’t had to face in the past… We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings.” Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.
**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 lacks privacy and exposes users to government and corporate intrusions.
81% of people surveyed feel “not very” or “not at all” secure when using social media sites to share private information. 48% of people reported some difficulty in managing their privacy settings. 13 million users said they had not set or did not know about Facebook’s privacy settings. The US government submitted 36,812 requests for data from Facebook and 7,036 requests from Twitter in 2015, approximately 80% of which were honored at least in part. The National Security Agency (NSA) can monitor social media activity and read the content of private social media messages simply by entering a person’s username into their system. Contego Services Group, which specialize in worker compensation claims, has a unit dedicated to social media monitoring to detect fraud.
**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…
|
# Banned Books Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Many frequently challenged books help people get a better idea of the world and their place in it.
Robie H. Harris, author of frequently challenged children’s books including It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing up, Sex, and Sexual Health, stated, “I think these books look at the topics, the concerns, the worry, the fascination that kids have today… It’s the world in which they’re living.”
Many books that have long been considered to be required reading to become educated about literature and American history are frequently challenged, such as: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, Beloved by Toni Morrison, and Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston.
46 of the Radcliffe Publishing Group’s “Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century” are frequently challenged. Banning these books would deprive students of essential cultural and historical knowledge, as well as differing points of view.
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Marijuana is addictive, and dependence on the drug will increase with legalization.
Heavy users who stop using marijuana may suffer withdrawal symptoms such as insomnia, depression, anxiety, nausea, chills, and stomach pain. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, as many as four million Americans meet the diagnostic criteria for a marijuana use disorder, such as abuse, dependence, or addiction. Dr. Drew Pinsky, a board-certified internist and addiction medicine specialist, said, “I’ve been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis.”
A study in the Journal of Drug Issues found that the number of US daily marijuana users has risen dramatically since 2002 and now 68% of users report daily or near-daily use. Kevin Sabet, director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, wrote, “The scientific verdict is that marijuana can be addictive and dangerous… Many baby boomers have a hard time understanding this simply because today’s marijuana can be so much stronger than the marijuana of the past.”
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalization of marijuana is phasing out black markets and taking money away from drug cartels, organized crime, and street gangs.
Data from the US Border Patrol show that marijuana seizures have decreased by millions of pounds and are at their lowest levels in over a decade, indicating that legal domestic production is decreasing demand for marijuana smuggled in from Mexico. A Mexican cannabis farmer told NPR, “If the US continues to legalize pot, they’ll run us into the ground.” According to the ACLU, legalization in Colorado and Washington has cost Mexican drug cartels an estimated $2.7 billion in profits.
Stephen Downing, a retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said, “There’s no question that ending today’s prohibition on drugs — starting with marijuana — would do more to hurt the cartels than any level of law enforcement skill or dedication ever can.” By the year 2020, an estimated 90% of the marijuana market in Colorado will be supplied by licensed and taxed vendors, demonstrating that the black market can be replaced by legal, regulated sales.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# DACA & the DREAM Act - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
DACA and the DREAM Act are good for the US economy.
The Center for American Progress stated, “DACA has been unreservedly good for the U.S. economy” and that DACA recipients will “contribute $460.3 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product [GDP] over the next decade—economic growth that would be lost were DACA to be eliminated.”
California, which has the most DACA recipients of any state, could see a $11.6 billion decline in GDP if DACA were ended. Texas, which had the second largest DACA population, stood to lose $6.3 billion.
If the Dream Act were passed, it would add $22.7 billion annually to the US GDP, and up to $400 billion over the next decade.
Benjamin Harris, former Chief Economist and Economic Advisor to then Vice President Joe Biden, stated: “Individuals eligible for the DACA program tend to be higher-skilled than their ineligible counterparts, simply because the typical DACA-eligible immigrant arrived in the America at age six and was educated in the U.S. Put differently, sending DACA participants back to their home countries would be a waste of billions in human capital already invested in the young immigrants.”
**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.
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
Because the United States is a very wealthy country, it should provide health care for all its citizens.
Many European countries with a universal right to health care, such as France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, have a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita than the United States, yet they provide a right to health care for all their citizens. As of 2017, 28.5 million people (8.8% of the US population) did not have health insurance and, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, as many as 35 million people will be uninsured by 2028. The United States spent $10,209 per person on health care in 2017, over 2.5 times the average spent by member countries of the OECD ($3,992 per person). With that level of spending, the United States should be able to provide a right to healthcare to everyone.
**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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Defense:
Clinton presided over a modernization of the US military which led to increased readiness and efficiency. His administration focused on precision weapons and the use of GPS (Global Positioning System) technology. The result of his focus was lower collateral damage, lower casualty rates, and advanced communications. He also increased pay and benefits for military personnel.
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care could make medical services affordable for everyone.
According to a Gallup Poll, paying for health care is the biggest financial problem for US households. A 2018 survey published by Becker’s Healthcare found that 22% of Americans found paying their deductible was “very difficult” or “impossible” and 64% reported that they delayed or did not seek medical care due to cost. The cost of US family health insurance premiums increased 80% in the United States between 2003 and 2013. The cost of health insurance premiums for people who do not get coverage through work increased 105% between 2013 and 2017.
**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…
|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Discharging student loan debt would only be a temporary bandage for the much larger problem of inflated college costs.
The US already has several student loan forgiveness programs and yet we’re still in a student loan debt crisis.
People who work in public service jobs can have their loans forgiven after 120 loan payments. Some teachers can have up to $17,500 forgiven after five years of teaching. Nurses can have up to 60% of nursing education loans forgiven, followed by another 25%.
Income-driven repayment (IDR) plans are available that allow loans to be forgiven after 20-25 years of income-based payments. Military members can have up to 100% of their loans forgiven. Medical doctors and lawyers have multiple options for forgiveness. AmeriCorps service members can have 100% of their loans forgiven.
Betsy Mayotte, President and Founder of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, noted, “To me the free or debt-free college proposals hold more weight [than loan forgiveness], as they address the illness itself rather than just the symptoms. Don’t get me wrong — if we could find a way to do both, we should — but reducing the debt consumers have to take out in the first place would be the thing that would have the longer-lasting benefit to the economy.”
The US needs a solution to outsized college costs that cause students to take out loans in the first place, rather than a temporary solution that does nothing to prevent the next generation from accruing similar debt.
**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]
|
# Kneeling during the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
When one believes the United States is not living up to its ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice for all, kneeling during the national anthem is appropriate and justified.
Colin Kaepernick said, “I’m not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color… To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
Many other athletes have since refused to stand for the national anthem for similar reasons. Denver Broncos linebacker Brandon Marshall, who also has knelt during the national anthem, said, “the message is I’m against social injustice… I’m not against the military or police or America at all.”
NASCAR official and Army veteran Kirk Price, who kneeled during the anthem at a June 2020 race, stated, “I fully respect the flag… That’s not what the issue is here. The issue is African Americans being oppressed for so long under the flag… But to be honest with you, I know what the flag stands for and I know about Black people being oppressed because I am one.”
**Background**
The debate about kneeling or sitting in protest during the national anthem was ignited by Colin Kaepernick in 2016 and escalated to become a nationally divisive issue.
San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first refused to stand during “The Star-Spangled Banner” on Aug. 26, 2016 to protest racial injustice and police brutality in the United States. Since that time, many other professional football players, high school athletes, and professional athletes in other sports have refused to stand for the national anthem. These protests have generated controversy and sparked a public conversation about the protesters’ messages and how they’ve chosen to deliver them. [7] [8] [9]
The 2017 NFL pre-season began with black players from the Seattle Seahawks, Oakland Raiders, and Philadelphia Eagles kneeling or sitting during the anthem with support of white teammates. On Aug. 21, 2017, twelve Cleveland Browns players knelt in a prayer circle during the national anthem with at least four other players standing with hands on the kneeling players’ shoulders in solidarity, the largest group of players to take a knee during the anthem to date. [20] [21]
Jabrill Peppers, a rookie safety for the Browns, said of the protest, “There’s a lot of racial and social injustices in the world that are going on right now. We just decided to take a knee and pray for the people who have been affected and just pray for the world in general… We were not trying to disrespect the flag or be a distraction to the team, but as men we thought we had the right to stand up for what we believed in, and we demonstrated that.” [21]
Seth DeValve, a tight end for the Browns and the first white NFL player to kneel for the anthem, stated, “The United States is the greatest country in the world. And it is because it provides opportunities to its citizens that no other country does. The issue is that it doesn’t provide equal opportunity to everybody, and I wanted to support my African-American teammates today who wanted to take a knee. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that there’s things in this country that still need to change.” [20]
However, some Cleveland Browns fans expressed their dissatisfaction on the team’s Facebook page. One commenter posted, “Pray before or pray after. Taking a knee during the National Anthem these days screams disrespect for our Flag, Our Country and our troops. My son and the entire armed forces deserve better than that.” [22]
On Friday, Sep. 22, 2017, President Donald Trump stated his opposition to NFL players kneeling during the anthem: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!” The statement set off a firestorm on both sides of the debate. Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, said of Trump’s comments, “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.” [23]
The controversy continued over the weekend as the President continued to tweet about the issue and others contributed opinions for and against kneeling during the anthem. On Sunday, Sep. 24, in London before the first NFL game played after Trump’s comments, at least two dozen Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars players knelt during the American national anthem, while other players, coaches, and staff locked arms, including Shad Khan, who is the only Pakistani-American Muslim NFL team owner. Throughout the day, some players, coaches, owners, and other staff kneeled or linked arms from every team except the Carolina Panthers. The Pittsburgh Steelers chose to remain in the locker room during the anthem, though offensive tackle and Army Ranger veteran Alejandro Villanueva stood at the entrance to the field alone, for which he has since apologized. Both the Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans teams stayed in their locker rooms before their game, leaving the field mostly empty during the anthem. The Seahawks stated, “As a team, we have decided we will not participate in the national anthem. We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of color in this country. Out of love for our country and in honor of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we unite to oppose those that would deny our most basic freedoms.” [24] [25] [27]
The controversy jumped to other sports as every player on WNBA’s Indiana Fever knelt on Friday, Sep. 22 (though WNBA players had been kneeling for months); Oakland A’s catcher Bruce Maxwell kneeled on Saturday becoming the first MLB player to do so; and Joel Ward, of the NHL’s San Jose Sharks, said he would not rule out kneeling. USA soccer’s Megan Rapinoe knelt during the anthem in 2016, prompting the US Soccer Federation to issue Policy 604-1, ordering all players to stand during the anthem. [28] [29] [30] [31] [35]
The country was still debating the issue well into the week, with Trump tweeting throughout, including on Sep. 26: “The NFL has all sort of rules and regulations. The only way out for them is to set a rule that you can’t kneel during our National Anthem!” [26]
On May 23, 2018, the NFL announced that all 32 team owners agreed that all players and staff on the field shall “stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem” or face “appropriate discipline.” However, all players will no longer be required to be on the field during the anthem and may wait off field or in the locker room. The new rules were adopted without input from the players’ union. On July 20, 2018, the NFL and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) issued a joint statement putting the anthem policy on hold until the two organizations come to an agreement. [32] [33] [34]
During the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, official league positions on kneeling began to change. On June 5, 2020, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated, “We, the National Football League, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people. We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all players to speak out and peacefully protest.” [39]
Before the June 7, 2020 race, NASCAR lifted the guidelines that all team members must stand during the anthem, allowing NASCAR official and Army veteran Kirk Price to kneel during the anthem. [40]
On June 10, 2020, the US Soccer Federation rescinded the league’s requirement that players stand during the anthem amid the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd. The US Soccer Federation stated, “It has become clear that this policy was wrong and detracted from the important message of Black Lives Matter.” [35]
In the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed, 52% of Americans stated it was “OK for NFL players to kneel during the National Anthem to protest the police killing of African Americans.” [41]
The debate largely quieted after the summer of 2020, with a brief resurgence about athletes displaying political gestures on Olympic podiums of Tokyo in 2021 and Beijing in 2022.
For more on the National Anthem, see: “History of the National Anthem: Is ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ Racist?“
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
More gun control leads to fewer suicides.
Between 1999 and 2013 there were 270,237 firearm suicides in the United States, accounting for about 52% of all suicides during those years. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. Female first-time firearm owners were 35 times more likely to commit suicide within 12 years of buying the gun compared to women who did not own guns; male first-time firearm owners were about eight times more likely to do so. Firearm-related suicides accounted for 61% of the gun deaths in the United States between 2000 and 2010. Researchers found that a “general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed.” In Indiana and Connecticut, after “red flag” laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.
**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 Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
Students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers.
A 1994 peer-reviewed study found that students in uniform were perceived by teachers and fellow students as being more academically proficient than students in regular clothes. The study also found that students in uniform were perceived by peers and teachers as having higher academic potential, and perceived by peers as being better behaved.
**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…
|
# GMO Pros and Cons - Should Genetically Modified Organisms Be Grown?'
**Argument**
GMO crops lower the price of food and increase nutritional content, helping to alleviate world hunger.
The World Food Programme, a humanitarian organization, between 720 and 811 million people face hunger globally. Population growth, climate change, over-farming, and water shortages all contribute to food scarcity. GMOs can help address those problems with genetic engineering to improve crop yields and help farmers grow food in drought regions or on depleted soil, thereby lowering food prices and feeding more people.
David Zilberman, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Berkeley, said that GMO crops have “raised the output of corn, cotton and soy by 20 to 30 percent, allowing some people to survive who would not have without it. If it were more widely adopted around the world, the price [of food] would go lower, and fewer people would die of hunger.”
To combat Vitamin A deficiency, the main cause of childhood blindness in developing countries, researchers developed a GMO ‘Golden Rice’ that produces high levels of beta-carotene. A report by Australia and New Zealand’s food safety regulator found that Golden Rice “is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional rice.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDid You Know?Discussion QuestionsTake Action
Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. The earliest form of selective breeding were simple and have persisted: farmers save and plant only the seeds of plants that produced the most tasty or largest (or otherwise preferable) results. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered and developed the basics of DNA by crossbreeding peas. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [1] [2] [53] [55]
To create a GMO plant, scientists follow these basic steps over several years:
Identify the desired trait and find an animal or plant with that trait. For example, scientists were looking to make corn more insect-resistant. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt), that naturally produces an insecticide commonly used in organic agriculture.Copy the specific gene for the desired trait.Insert the specific gene into the DNA of the plant scientists want to change. In the above example, the insecticide gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was inserted into corn.Grow the new plant and perform tests for safety and the desired trait. [55]
According to the Genetic Literacy Project, “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops, allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GMO. [58]
In the United States, the health and environmental safety standards for GM crops are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Between 1985 and Sep. 2013, the USDA approved over 17,000 different GM crops for field trials, including varieties of corn, soybean, potato, tomato, wheat, canola, and rice, with various genetic modifications such as herbicide tolerance; insect, fungal, and drought resistance; and flavor or nutrition enhancement. [44] [45]
In 1994, the “FLAVR SAVR” tomato became the first genetically modified food to be approved for public consumption by the FDA. The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life. [51]
Recently, the term “bioengineered” food has come into popularity, under the argument that almost all food has been “genetically modified” via selective breeding or other basic growing methods. Bioengineered food refers specifically to food that has undergone modification using rDNA technology, but does not include food genetically modified by basic cross-breeding or selective breeding. As of Jan. 10, 2022, the USDA listed 12 bioengineered products available in the US: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet. [56] [57]
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard established mandatory national standards for labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. The Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 and compliance became mandatory on Jan. 1, 2022. [46]
49% of US adults believe that eating GMO foods are “worse” for one’s health, 44% say they are “neither better nor worse,” and 5% believe they are “better,” according to a 2018 Pew Research Center report. [9]
|
# Vaping Pros and Cons - 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
E-cigarettes can catch fire and even explode.
E-cigarette explosions have led to the loss of body parts (such as an eye, tongue, or tooth), third degree burns, holes in the roof of the mouth, and death.
Researchers at George Mason University found that 2,035 people sought emergency room treatment for burn or explosion injuries from e-cigarettes between 2015 and 2017, and believe there were more injuries that went untreated. They also found more than 40 times the number of injuries reported by the FDA between 2009 and 2015.
Airlines prohibit e-cigarettes in checked baggage due to the possibility of their lithium batteries catching fire. In Jan. 2019, a passenger’s e-cigarette overheated and caught fire in the airplane cabin. That same month, a Texas man died when debris from an e-cigarette explosion tore his carotid artery. In 2018, a man in Florida was killed by shrapnel from his e-cigarette exploding.
The US Fire Administration (USFA) found 195 reports of e-cigarette explosions and fires including 133 acute injuries, of which 29% were severe. The USFA stated, “No other consumer product that is typically used so close to the human body contains the lithium-ion battery that is the root cause of the incidents.”
**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]
|
# Defunding the Police Pros and Cons | Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Police officer and police department reforms have not worked.
Mariame Kaba, a “prison industrial complex abolitionist,” states, “Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police. There is not a single era in United States history in which the police were not a force of violence against black people.”
Kaba notes the first major police misconduct investigation was in 1894 in New York City, the Lexow Committee, in which over 100 officers were collectively convicted of 56 charges of third-degree assault, 45 charges of second-degree assault, as well as multiple charges of criminal neglect, oppression, and attempted rape. Only four officers were dismissed as a result, three because they’d assaulted other officers.
Philip V. McHarris, PhD candidate at Yale University, and Thenjiwe McHarris, from Movement for Black Lives, argue, “Look at the Minneapolis Police Department, which is held up as a model of progressive police reform. The department offers procedural justice as well as trainings for implicit bias, mindfulness and de-escalation. It embraces community policing and officer diversity, bans ‘warrior style’ policing, uses body cameras, implemented an early intervention system to identify problematic officers, receives training around mental health crisis intervention, and practices ‘reconciliation’ efforts in communities of color.”
And still George Floyd and 51 other black men, along with 15 American Indian men, and 9 Hispanic men were killed by Minneapolis Police Department officers between Jan. 2000 and May 31, 2020. Further reforms have been recommended to the Minneapolis Police Department repeatedly to lower use-of-force violations but none were implemented.
In July 2014, Eric Garner died from a chokehold performed by a police officer after New York banned the hold in 1993. Austin and Los Angeles police were shown firing projectiles at people’s heads, which is prohibited in both jurisdictions. Increased diversity on police forces did little to curb unnecessary police stops of people of color in Ferguson or Baltimore.
Two 2016 Harvard University studies found that anti-bias techniques meant to fight stereotypes reduced implicit bias for a few hours to a few days, but not longer. Such training has little to no effect on racial bias in traffic stops or marijuana arrests.
Some, including Stuart Schrader, PhD, Associate Director of the Program in Racism, Immigration, and Citizenship at Johns Hopkins University, argue that reforms are not wholly intended to change the departments for the better, but are an excuse for the departments to maintain power and acquire a bigger budget. Reform programs come with more money and little accountability for police departments, continuing the historical cycle of oppression.
**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]
|
# DC & Puerto Rico Statehood - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Granting DC or Puerto Rico statehood is a partisan ploy by liberals to unfairly gain more voters for the passage of legislation that the majority of Americans reject and which can’t win approval under existing laws.
78% of Republican voters opposed making DC a state in a 2019 Gallup poll. A percentage explained by Erin Doherty of FiveThirtyEight: “adding a state could change the makeup of Congress. Washington, D.C., is a heavily Democratic city — for example, just 4 percent of its residents voted for President Trump in 2016 — so D.C. statehood would almost certainly give Democrats two more senators and one more seat in the House, all of which could make Republicans less likely to support it.”
Keith Naughton, PhD, Co-Founder of Silent Majority Strategies, argued that granting DC statehood is “bad policy and uses the legitimate grievance of lack of representation by D.C. residents for temporary partisan gain.”
As Naugton explained, DC statehood is the “cause celebre of the moment for the activist Left. Stung by their lack of appeal in rural America (exacerbated by their utter unwillingness to try), adding D.C. as a state is their solution. In other words, if the rules don’t work for us, change the rules.”
US Representative James Comer (R-KY) was even more direct about Democrats’ objectives, calling the statehood push a “power grab”: “D.C. statehood is all about Speaker Pelosi and liberal Democrats consolidating their power to enact radical policies nationwide like the Green New Deal, packing the Supreme Court, and eliminating the filibuster. The Democrats’ bill is unconstitutional and no amount of testimony can change that basic fact… H.R. 51 doesn’t rest in sound policy and is a dangerous political power grab that will ensure more government intrusion into Americans’ daily lives.”
Many of the same arguments apply to Puerto Rico, though fewer Republicans (48%) are opposed to its statehood.
Senator Mitch McConnell, who summarized both statehood campaigns as “full-bore socialism,” explained that the House Democrats want to pass laws “that would turn us into a country we would never be… They’re on the way to doing some additional things… the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and by the way… they plan to make the District of Columbia a state that gives two new Democratic senators. [Make] Puerto Rico a state [and] get two more new Democratic senators. And… you’ve surely noticed [their] plan to expand the Supreme Court.”
Liberals can’t be allowed to add states just to gain support for policies that are unsupported by residents of existing US states.
**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**
Women are responsible and knowledgeable enough to care for their own bodies.
Alison Block, physician, said: “My main philosophy as someone who provides reproductive health care is to trust women to make their own decisions. The idea that they have to [have a] conversation with a doctor to decide which method is best for them seems overly paternalistic and unnecessary.”
Often, doctors will only prescribe birth control pills once a patient has visited and had a pelvic exam. However, Pap smears are now recommended every three years instead of every year, and only after a woman has turned 21. Nancy Stanwood, MD, obstetrician and Board Chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health, stated, “We were holding pregnancy prevention hostage to cancer screening [Pap smears]. They’re both worthwhile goals, but one should not be held hostage to the other.”
Women can sort out for themselves whether hormonal birth control is right for them. In one study, 98% of women matched their doctors’ medical evaluations about whether they could use hormonal birth control. The women were more cautious about contraindications (medical reasons not to take a drug) such as headaches, smoking, and potential pregnancy than their doctors were. The Border Contraceptive Access Study found that women who got the Pill OTC from a pharmacy in Mexico were adequately self-screening for contraindications.
**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**
High-capacity magazines should be banned because they too often turn murder into mass murder.
A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%. David H. Chipman, Senior Vice President of Public Safety for ShotSpotter and former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) agent, stated that a high-capacity magazine “turns a killer into a killing machine.” Some gang members use high-capacity magazines, such as 30 rounds or even 90 rounds, to compensate for lack of accuracy and maximize the chance to harm. According to a Feb. 2019 NPR poll, 65% of Americans believed banning high-capacity magazines would reduce gun violence.
**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 Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work.
96% of recruiters use social media in the recruiting process; 87% use LinkedIn, 55% use Facebook, and 47% use Twitter. 48% of job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 67% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 45% use Twitter, and 40% use LinkedIn. 69% of students use social media when finding internships.
**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…
|
# Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?'
**Argument**
Standardized tests are unfair metrics for teacher evaluations.
16 states and DC have stopped using standardized tests in teacher evaluations. [79] [80] As W. James Popham, PhD, noted, “standardized achievement tests should not be used to determine the effectiveness of a state, a district, a school, or a teacher. There’s almost certain to be a significant mismatch between what’s taught and what’s tested.”
Margaret Pastor, PhD, Principal of Stedwick Elementary School in Maryland, stated: “[A]n assistant superintendent… pointed out that in one of my four kindergarten classes, the student scores were noticeably lower, while in another, the students were outperforming the other three classes. He recommended that I have the teacher whose class had scored much lower work directly with the teacher who seemed to know how to get higher scores from her students. Seems reasonable, right? But here was the problem: The “underperforming” kindergarten teacher and the “high-performing” teacher were one and the same person.”
**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 Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Many people lack the basic financial literacy to make wise investment decisions on their own, and if workers had to adopt private accounts, unscrupulous financial advisors could take advantage of novice investors.
A 2015 survey published in USA Today revealed that only 39% of Americans know the annual percentage rate (APR) on their primary credit card, and almost 45% don’t know what a credit score evaluates. [41]
According to researchers Annamaria Lusardi, PhD, and Olivia S. Mitchell, PhD, of Dartmouth College, financial illiteracy is widespread among older Americans. In their Oct. 2009 study on financial literacy among adults over 50, Lusardi and Mitchell found that only half of the participants could answer two simple questions on compound interest and inflation.
According to the FBI, there were 1,846 cases of securities and commodities fraud pending as of 2011, and some of the schemes defrauded several thousand investors each. Many of the victims were elderly investors.
The Obama Administration’s Council of Economic Advisors estimated that Americans lose about $17 billion per year on retirement investments that are arranged to benefit financial advisors at the expense of investors.
After the United Kingdom introduced private accounts in the 1980s, unscrupulous salespeople advised millions of people to invest in risky personal pensions dependent on stock market returns. As a result of the losses incurred, the UK government had to pay out more than £13 billion (equivalent to about US$20 billion as of Aug. 2015) in compensation to the victims.
**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…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media sites help students do better at school.
59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social media to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. After George Middle School in Portland, Oregon, introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. A Jan. 2015 study published in the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology said college freshman should use social networking sites to build networks of new friends, feel socially integrated at their new schools, and reduce their risk of dropping out.
**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…
|
# Employer Vaccine Mandates - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Vaccine mandates are reasonable conditions of employment, and most employees agree.
While headlines abound proclaiming the firing of workers who have refused vaccination, most workers comply with mandates to keep or start a job.
For example, a Jan. 25, 2022, headline in The Hill stated, “73 San Diego school workers terminated over vaccine mandate.” Buried in the article is the fact that 99% of San Diego school workers were vaccinated or received an exemption.
When Essentia implemented a flu vaccine mandate across their Midwest hospital chain in 2017, only 50 of almost 14,000 employees were fired for non-compliance with the mandate, or about 0.35% of the workforce.
A Dec. 2, 2021, survey found that 31% of employers worried vaccine mandates would result in employee resignations. However, only 13% of employers reported resignations connected to vaccine mandates.
A Jan. 2022 poll completed after the US Supreme Court struck down the federal vaccine mandate found 56% of those surveyed supported employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates, with 33% opposed to such mandates and the other 10% saying they had no opinion. Even 23% of unvaccinated employees supported a mandate.
**Background**
While the current debate about employer vaccine mandates in the United States centers upon COVID-19 requirements, mandates and the debate about them are as old as the country itself.
The first American “vaccine” mandate was issued by then General George Washington in 1777. Washington ordered Continental Army troops to be inoculated against smallpox with the precursor to the smallpox vaccine during the Revolutionary War. According to Andrew Wehrman, Associate Professor of History at Central Michigan University, the soldiers themselves “were the ones calling for it.… There’s no record that I have seen — and I’ve looked — of any soldier turning it down, protesting it.” [1]
Continental Army soldiers may have welcomed inoculation, but plenty of other people did not. After the Reverend Cotton Mather promoted and introduced smallpox inoculation in Boston in 1721 to battle a deadly outbreak of the viral disease, a man threw a bomb through a window of his home with the note: “Cotton Mather, you dog, dam you! I’ll inoculate you with this; with a pox to you.” In fact, most of the doctors in Boston were against inoculation; they even formed an organization called the “Society of Physicians Anti-Inoculators.” Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduced a smallpox vaccine into the country in 1800, courtesy of his friend, the British discoverer of the vaccine, Edward Jenner. The Founding Fathers welcomed the innovation, though too late in the case of Benjamin Franklin, who initially battled inoculation until his un-inoculated four-year-old son died from smallpox. “I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it [a preventative dose of smallpox] to him by inoculation,” admitted Franklin in his 1771 autobiography. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Most early vaccine mandates were implemented by state and local governments. For example, Massachusetts was the first state to mandate vaccines for school children in the 1850s. By 1900, half of the US states had school vaccine mandates; by 1980, all US states had them. [2] [8] [9]
The debate about mandates had taken full form by the end of the 1800s, with dissenting opinions looking much like contemporary arguments: “Some Americans opposed mandates on the grounds of personal liberty; some because they believed lawmakers were in cahoots with vaccine makers; and some because of safety concerns.” [1]
In 1905, the US Supreme Court entered the debate, ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that compulsory vaccination laws enacted by state and local governments were constitutional and enforceable. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that individual liberty is not absolute: “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.… [T]he fundamental principle of the social compact… [is] that all shall be governed by certain laws for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men.” The ruling allowed for medical exemptions, and it has been considered the authority on the subject ever since. School vaccine mandates were subsequently upheld by the US Supreme Court in Zucht v. King (1922). [2] [10]
During World War II, the US military began mandating a host of vaccines for service members, including typhoid, yellow fever, and tetanus. As of 2021, the US military required service members to get 18 vaccines, including adenovirus, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, flu, meningococcal, MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), polio, tetanus-diphtheria, and varicella (chicken pox). Members can be required to be vaccinated against other diseases based on service location: anthrax, haemophilus influenzae type B, Japanese encephalitis, pneumococcal disease, rabies, smallpox, typhoid fever, and yellow fever. Civilian military employees are also subject to vaccine mandates, including the COVID-19 vaccine. The US military allows administrative, medical, and religious vaccine exemptions, though they are rare. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Other than the US military, healthcare facilities are the most common type of employer to mandate vaccines. For years, some healthcare workers have been required to have multiple vaccinations including: hepatitis B, influenza, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), pertussis, pneumococcal disease, and varicella (chickenpox). [16]
Healthcare workers, among employees in other industries, are also increasingly required to have COVID-19 vaccinations. A Dec. 2, 2021, survey found that 25% of employers planned on implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, regardless of a federal mandate. 32% only planned to implement a mandate if the federal government required employee vaccination. And 33% said they would enforce a testing protocol rather than mandate COVID-19 vaccines. [17]
Many states and DC have implemented COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine-or-test mandates as employers. The mandates may cover executive branch staff, teachers at state schools and pre-schools, state-run healthcare facility employees, and other state government employees. Conversely, several states have enacted laws banning employers from implementing vaccine mandates. [18] [19]
The US Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 13, 2022, that the Biden Administration does not have the authority to impose a COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate. The White House mandate would have required people who work for employers with 100 or more employees to either be vaccinated or tested weekly and wear a mask indoors if unvaccinated. The Court allowed the White House COVID-19 vaccine mandate to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments. [20]
In the wake of this ruling, many large companies were rethinking the implementation or enforcement of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Many companies, including Carhartt, CitiGroup, and United Airlines, maintained their mandates, while others, including Boeing, GE, and Starbucks, did not. [21]
Whatever the status of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many employers have legally required certain employees to be vaccinated against other diseases. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that employers may require employees to be vaccinated as long as the businesses “comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.” Those accommodations include but are not limited to medical and religious exemptions. [22]
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media sites’ advertising practices may constitute an invasion of privacy.
An ExactTarget marketing report tells companies, “When a user clicks on a [Facebook] like button belonging to your brand, you’re immediately granted access to additional information about this customer, from school affiliation and workplace information to their birthdate and other things they like… [M]arketers can access and leverage data in ways that will truly alarm customers.” From social media sites, simple algorithms can determine where you live, sexual orientation, personality traits, signs of depression, and alma maters among other information, even if users put none of those data on their social media profiles.
**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…
|
# Corporal Punishment in K-12 Schools - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
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. 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.
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.”
**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}
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
The use of social media is correlated with personality and brain disorders.
A University of Pittsburgh study found that social media use was “significantly associated with increased depression” amongst adults aged between 19 and 32. Another study found that addictive social media use reflected increased narcissistic personality traits. Researchers have found that “interruptions due to phone notifications can cause inattention and hyperactivity in the general population.” A UK government study found that 41% of children who spend over three hours on social media on a normal school day reportedly suffer from mental health difficulties compared with 21% who spend no time on the sites.
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Crime:
In a Sep. 28, 1981 speech to the International Chiefs of Police, Reagan claimed that people who commit violent crimes “are not desperate people seeking bread for their families; crime is the way they’ve chosen to live.” This attitude failed to address the stark realities underlying crime, namely the national culture of poverty and discrimination. Violent crime nationwide increased 21% from 1981-1989. The “War on Drugs” wasted billions of dollars and escalated drug-related crime.
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
Implementing a right to health care could lead the United States towards socialism.
Socialism, by definition, entails government control of the distribution of goods and services. Under a single-payer system where everyone has a right to health care, and all health care bills are paid by the government, the government can control the distribution of health care services. According to Ronald Reagan, “one of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine,” and once socialized medicine is instituted, “behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom.” In Aug. 2013, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was asked if Obamacare is a step towards a single-payer universal health care system, he answered “absolutely, yes.” The free market should determine the availability and cost of health care services, not the federal government.
**Background**
27.5 million people in the United States (8.5% of the US population) do not have health insurance. Among the 91.5% who do have health insurance, 67.3% have private insurance while 34.4% have government-provided coverage through programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. Employer-based health insurance is the most common type of coverage, applying to 55.1% of the US population. The United States is the only nation among the 37 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations that does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right.
Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in one of the richest nations on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service.
Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual’s responsibility, not the government’s role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to larger government debt and deficits. Read more background…
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.