text
stringlengths 558
17k
|
|---|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Raising the minimum wage would decrease high school enrollment rates and increase drop-out rates.
Mark J. Perry, PhD, of the American Enterprise Institute states that “the attraction to higher wages from minimum wage legislation reduces high school completion rates for some students with limited skills, who are then disadvantaged with lower wages and career opportunities over the long-run if they never finish high school.” A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology found that in Maryland, “a 25-cent increase in the real minimum wage… was associated with a 0.55 percent increase in the dropout rate for Hispanic” students. A 2005 study published by Cornell University found that “a longterm 10% increase in the earnings of low-skilled workers could decrease high school enrollment rates by as much as 5-7%.” According to a 2003 study by economists David Neumark, PhD, and William Wascher, PhD, in states where teens can leave school before 18, a 10% increase in the minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop by 2%.
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public.
A 2017 EdNext poll of over 4,200 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 33% support it. Among teachers, 61% support tenure while 31% oppose it. 86% of education professors favor “making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers – even if they are tenured.”
**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…
|
# American Socialism - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The American public supports a capitalist economy.
The American public does not support socialism. 60% of Americans have favorable views of capitalism, while 38% have a unfavorable view of socialism. 84% of Americans support free enterprise, a cornerstone of capitalism, and 60% believe a free market model is the best economy.
Capitalism is the best fit for the American entrepreneurial spirit. As Mark J. Perry, PhD, MBA, Scholar at American Enterprise Institute and Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Michigan, explained, “Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.”
**Background**
Socialism in the United States is an increasingly popular topic. Some argue that the country should actively move toward socialism to spur social progress and greater equity, while others demand that the country prevent this by any and all means necessary. This subject is often brought up in connection with universal healthcare and free college education, ideas that are socialist by definition, or as a general warning against leftist politics.
While some politicians openly promote socialism or socialist policies (Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example), others reject the socialist label (now Vice President Kamala Harris said she was “not a Democratic Socialist” during the 2020 presidential campaign) or invoke it as a dirty word that is contrary to American ideals (in the 2019 State of the Union, President Trump stated the US would “never be a socialist country” because “We are born free, and we will stay free”). [1] [2]
To consider whether the United States should adopt socialism or at least more socialist policies, the relevant terms must first be defined.
Socialism is an economic and social policy in which the public owns industry and products, rather than private individuals or corporations. Under socialism, the government controls most means of production and natural resources, among other industries, and everyone in the country is entitled to an equitable share according to their contribution to society. Individual private ownership is encouraged. [3]
Politically, socialist countries tend to be multi-party with democratic elections. Currently no country operates under a 100% socialist policy. Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, while heavily socialist, all combine socialism with capitalism. [4] [5]
Capitalism, the United States’ current economic model, is a policy in which private individuals and corporations control production that is guided through markets, not by the government. Capitalism is also called a free market economy or free enterprise economy. Capitalism functions on private property, profit motive, and market competition. [6]
Politically, capitalist countries range from democracies to monarchies to oligarchies to despotisms. Most western countries are capitalist, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand. Also capitalist are Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates. However, many of these countries, including the United States, have implemented socialist policies within their capitalist systems, such as social security, minimum wages, and energy subsidies. [7] [8]
Communism is frequently used as a synonym for socialism and the exact differences between the two are heavily debated. One difference is that communism provides everyone in the country with an equal share, rather than the equitable share promised by socialism. Communism is commonly summarized by the Karl Marx slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” and was believed by Marx to be the step beyond socialism. Individual private ownership is illegal in most communist countries. [4] [9]
Politically, communist countries tend to be led by one communist party, and elections are only within that party. Frequently, the military has significant political power. Historically, a secret police has also shared that power, as in the former Soviet Union, the largest communist country in history. Civil liberties (such as freedom of the press, speech, and assembly) are publicly embraced, but frequently limited in practice, often by force. Countries that are currently communist include China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Worth noting is that some of these countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, label themselves as democratic or socialist though they meet the definition of communism and are run by communist parties. Additionally, some communist countries, such as China and Vietnam, operate with partial free market economies, which is a cornerstone of capitalism, and some socialist policies. [4] [5] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Given those definitions, should the United States adopt more socialist policies such as free college, medicare-for-all, and the Green New Deal?
|
# Employer Vaccine Mandates - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Vaccine mandates are not the most effective workplace policy; offering alternatives to vaccinations works better.
Journalist Yasmeen Serhan noted, “In the United States, being vaccinated is more common than drinking coffee, owning a television cable box or satellite dish, or even watching the Super Bowl.”
Because a high percentage of employees will already be vaccinated, or agreeable to additional vaccines, employer policies are necessarily directed toward people who are under- or unvaccinated and who may be vaccine hesitant.
A 2019 study found vaccine hesitant people “far outnumbered” vaccine refusers and recommended counseling and education because mandates are not the best way to change peoples’ minds about vaccines.
As lawyers Charlene A. Barker Gedeus and Alexis Aloi Graziano explained, “In an effort to increase employee immunization, employers may choose to educate and incentivize vaccinations. Employers opting out of mandatory vaccines should educate staff about how to prevent disease and the benefits of vaccination, sponsor vaccination sites at work, and institute policies that encourage employees to remain at home if they aren’t feeling well. Providing employees with credible information from the CDC is a necessary and meaningful step toward ensuring a safe work environment.” Offering alternatives, including testing, masking, and working offsite, may be more effective for the few who refuse vaccination.
**Background**
While the current debate about employer vaccine mandates in the United States centers upon COVID-19 requirements, mandates and the debate about them are as old as the country itself.
The first American “vaccine” mandate was issued by then General George Washington in 1777. Washington ordered Continental Army troops to be inoculated against smallpox with the precursor to the smallpox vaccine during the Revolutionary War. According to Andrew Wehrman, Associate Professor of History at Central Michigan University, the soldiers themselves “were the ones calling for it.… There’s no record that I have seen — and I’ve looked — of any soldier turning it down, protesting it.” [1]
Continental Army soldiers may have welcomed inoculation, but plenty of other people did not. After the Reverend Cotton Mather promoted and introduced smallpox inoculation in Boston in 1721 to battle a deadly outbreak of the viral disease, a man threw a bomb through a window of his home with the note: “Cotton Mather, you dog, dam you! I’ll inoculate you with this; with a pox to you.” In fact, most of the doctors in Boston were against inoculation; they even formed an organization called the “Society of Physicians Anti-Inoculators.” Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduced a smallpox vaccine into the country in 1800, courtesy of his friend, the British discoverer of the vaccine, Edward Jenner. The Founding Fathers welcomed the innovation, though too late in the case of Benjamin Franklin, who initially battled inoculation until his un-inoculated four-year-old son died from smallpox. “I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it [a preventative dose of smallpox] to him by inoculation,” admitted Franklin in his 1771 autobiography. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Most early vaccine mandates were implemented by state and local governments. For example, Massachusetts was the first state to mandate vaccines for school children in the 1850s. By 1900, half of the US states had school vaccine mandates; by 1980, all US states had them. [2] [8] [9]
The debate about mandates had taken full form by the end of the 1800s, with dissenting opinions looking much like contemporary arguments: “Some Americans opposed mandates on the grounds of personal liberty; some because they believed lawmakers were in cahoots with vaccine makers; and some because of safety concerns.” [1]
In 1905, the US Supreme Court entered the debate, ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that compulsory vaccination laws enacted by state and local governments were constitutional and enforceable. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that individual liberty is not absolute: “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.… [T]he fundamental principle of the social compact… [is] that all shall be governed by certain laws for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men.” The ruling allowed for medical exemptions, and it has been considered the authority on the subject ever since. School vaccine mandates were subsequently upheld by the US Supreme Court in Zucht v. King (1922). [2] [10]
During World War II, the US military began mandating a host of vaccines for service members, including typhoid, yellow fever, and tetanus. As of 2021, the US military required service members to get 18 vaccines, including adenovirus, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, flu, meningococcal, MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), polio, tetanus-diphtheria, and varicella (chicken pox). Members can be required to be vaccinated against other diseases based on service location: anthrax, haemophilus influenzae type B, Japanese encephalitis, pneumococcal disease, rabies, smallpox, typhoid fever, and yellow fever. Civilian military employees are also subject to vaccine mandates, including the COVID-19 vaccine. The US military allows administrative, medical, and religious vaccine exemptions, though they are rare. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Other than the US military, healthcare facilities are the most common type of employer to mandate vaccines. For years, some healthcare workers have been required to have multiple vaccinations including: hepatitis B, influenza, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), pertussis, pneumococcal disease, and varicella (chickenpox). [16]
Healthcare workers, among employees in other industries, are also increasingly required to have COVID-19 vaccinations. A Dec. 2, 2021, survey found that 25% of employers planned on implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, regardless of a federal mandate. 32% only planned to implement a mandate if the federal government required employee vaccination. And 33% said they would enforce a testing protocol rather than mandate COVID-19 vaccines. [17]
Many states and DC have implemented COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine-or-test mandates as employers. The mandates may cover executive branch staff, teachers at state schools and pre-schools, state-run healthcare facility employees, and other state government employees. Conversely, several states have enacted laws banning employers from implementing vaccine mandates. [18] [19]
The US Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 13, 2022, that the Biden Administration does not have the authority to impose a COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate. The White House mandate would have required people who work for employers with 100 or more employees to either be vaccinated or tested weekly and wear a mask indoors if unvaccinated. The Court allowed the White House COVID-19 vaccine mandate to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments. [20]
In the wake of this ruling, many large companies were rethinking the implementation or enforcement of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Many companies, including Carhartt, CitiGroup, and United Airlines, maintained their mandates, while others, including Boeing, GE, and Starbucks, did not. [21]
Whatever the status of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many employers have legally required certain employees to be vaccinated against other diseases. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that employers may require employees to be vaccinated as long as the businesses “comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.” Those accommodations include but are not limited to medical and religious exemptions. [22]
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccines protect the “herd.”
Herd immunity (or community immunity) means that when a “critical portion” (the percent of people who need to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity) of a population is vaccinated against a contagious disease it is unlikely that an outbreak of the disease will occur so most members of the community will be protected. Children and adults who cannot be vaccinated due to age, poor health (who are immune-compromised or undergoing chemotherapy, for example), or other reasons rely on herd immunity to prevent contraction of vaccine-preventable diseases. An Apr. 2019 measles outbreak resulted in the quarantine of over 200 people who had been exposed to the measles on the campuses of the University of California at Los Angeles and California State University. Because they could not verify their vaccinations, quarantining them raised the campus’ herd immunity and blocked the spread of the disease. In 2011, 49 US states did not meet the 92-94% herd immunity threshold for pertussis (whooping cough), resulting in a 2012 outbreak that sickened 48,277 people and was the biggest outbreak since 1955. In 2005, an 18-month-old Amish girl contracted polio and spread the disease to four other unvaccinated children, but, because the community met the herd immunity threshold for the disease, there was no polio outbreak.
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
People who do not go to college are more likely to be unemployed and, therefore, place undue financial strain on society, making a college degree worth it to taxpayers.
Young people “not engaged in employment/education or training,” AKA NEET, are more likely to receive welfare than youth in general, they are more likely to commit crimes, and they are more likely to receive public health care, all costing the government extra money. In total, each NEET youth between the ages of 16 and 25 impose a $51,350 financial burden on society per year, and after the person is 25 he or she will impose a financial burden of $699,770. The total cost of 6.7% of the US population being NEET youth is $4.75 trillion, which is comparable to half of the US public debt.
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Being a part of a social media site can increase a person’s quality of life and reduce the risk of health problems.
Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a “contagion” effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Abortion Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.
Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a “slow yet steady pace” since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019.
Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years.
Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care.
Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: “In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions.”
Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991).
Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions.
Historically, abortion was a popular means of birth control and family planning due to a lack of reliable contraception, education, and other resources, and the fact that childbirth was incredibly dangerous. Better options are now available, including more effective birth control, better healthcare and health insurance, and sex education to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen in the first place.
**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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: “If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional.”
**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…
|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Student loan debt has infantilized a generation or more of Americans, preventing them from achieving milestones such as getting married, buying a house, or saving for retirement. Discharging such debt would help foster a healthier, most productive, more socially constructive citizenry.
For women with bachelor’s degrees, each increase in $1,000 of student loan debt decreased the odds of marriage by 2% per month in the four years after graduation.
Student loan debt prevented about 400,000 people from buying homes between 2005 and 2014, which accounted for 25% of the decrease in home-ownership. Every $1,000 increase in student loan debt lowered the home ownership rate by 1.5% for those who attended four-year colleges. Further, student loan debtors save half as much for retirement by age 30 as those without debt.
An Aug. 2020 Roosevelt Institute study explained, “The positive effects of an evidence-based student debt cancellation policy for individuals and households extend far beyond the immediate need of removing burdensome debt. The ramifications for financial and personal well-being, credit, job stability and satisfaction, homeownership earlier in the life course, capacity to build wealth for emergencies, human capital investments, family stability, and accumulating wealth can multiply throughout a person’s life.” Choosing to go to college to compete in the job market shouldn’t prevent people from living the American dream.
**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]
|
# DC & Puerto Rico Statehood - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
DC residents are American citizens who are treated like second-class citizens.
“Since its creation, the District has sometimes been treated like a State. The District is deemed to be a State for the purpose of levying and collecting federal and local taxes, for service in the armed forces, for diversity jurisdiction, and for regulating commerce. But it still remains that, at present, the District is not considered a State for purposes of congressional representation,” explained John S. Baker, Jr. and Aderson B. Francois, both law professors at Georgetown University.
Moreover, DC has 712,000 residents who are subject to federal taxes, selective service (draft) laws and military service, and the whims of Congressional control over the district’s courts, laws, and budgets. But residents have only non-voting representation in the US House and no representation in the Senate, which means residents have no say in Senate committees, leadership of government agencies, ambassadors, or federal judges.
DC residents pay the highest per-capita federal taxes in the United States, and more total federal income tax than residents of 22 other states. Per the “no taxation without representation” standard set by the US Constitution, DC residents should have the Congressional representation they are denied by not being a state.
Further, Congress holds power over DC via the Home Rule Act of 1973, which means Congress can deny any law DC residents pass. Thus, DC is functionally a state until Congress wants to meddle in laws, such as the congressional blockage of DC’s adult-use marijuana sales law that was passed with overwhelming citizen support (70%) in 2014 but is still being blocked by Congress in 2021.
**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.
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
School vouchers do not improve students’ academic performance.
A 2016 study found “strong and consistent evidence” that school voucher students in Louisiana attending private schools “performed significantly worse in math.” Another study of Louisiana’s program found attendance at a voucher-eligible private school increased the likelihood of a child failing math by 50%, and “negative and large” effects on reading, science, and social studies.
In Milwaukee, researchers found that students using vouchers to attend private schools fared “no better academically than their public school peers.”
In Indianapolis, students who left public schools to attend private Catholic schools with vouchers showed “no benefit” in reading skills, while suffering “moderate and statistically significant average annual losses” in math, while those same students had been improving in public schools.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
School vouchers are state- or school district-funded scholarships that allow students to attend a private school of the family’s choice rather than sending the child to public school.
According to EdChoice, in the 2018-2019 school year, 18 states and DC had one or more voucher programs: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. At least 188,424 students received vouchers that school year. [21]
Though two state voucher programs have existed since the 19th century–Vermont (1869) and Main (1873)–the current debate began with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, instituted in 1990. [21]
In 2002, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s Cleveland Scholarship Program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The ruling held that the voucher program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if vouchers were used for religious schools. [22]
|
# Should the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Be Raised?'
**Argument**
Raising the corporate income tax rate would force companies to invest in the United States, rather than overseas.
The overseas corporate tax rate (GILTI: Global Intangible Low-Tax Income) enacted in 2017 requires corporations to pay just 10.5% on overseas profits. By raising that rate to at least 21%, “the new minimum tax would be calculated on a country-by-country basis rather than on a global average, which would prevent companies from exploiting tax havens to drive their average rate down to the minimum—and eliminate a potential incentive to locate operations in high-tax foreign countries, rather than the United States, if the companies’ average foreign tax rate is below the minimum,” according to experts at the Center for American Progress.
Itai Grinberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multilateral Tax, and Rebecca Kysar, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, both of the US Treasury Department, argue that “[u]nder current law, U.S. multinational corporations face only a 10.5% minimum tax on their foreign earnings, half the rate that they pay on their domestic earnings, incentivizing them to operate and shift profits abroad… The Made in America Tax Plan would increase the minimum tax on corporate foreign earnings to 21%, reducing a corporation’s incentives to shift profits and jobs abroad… Under current law, companies have large tax incentives to put activities and earnings offshore; a strong minimum tax can reduce that tax distortion, favoring activity and earnings at home.”
**Background**
The creation of the federal corporate income tax occurred in 1909, when the uniform rate was 1% for all business income above $5,000. Since then the rate has increased to as high as 52.8% in 1969. Today’s rate is set at 21% for all companies.
Proponents of raising the corporate tax rate argue that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes and that those taxes will keep companies in the United States while allowing the US federal government to pay for much needed infrastructure and social programs.
Opponents of raising the corporate tax rate argue that an increase will weaken the economy and that the taxes will ultimately be paid by everyday people while driving corporations overseas. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets increase the number of excuses available for students not doing their schoolwork.
Students have new available excuses, including: “my computer/tablet crashed,” “the internet was down so I could not do any research,” and “I forgot my charger.”
**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…
|
# Dakota Access Pipeline Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Dakota Access Pipeline is being built on sacred land guaranteed to the Oceti Sakowin (Sioux) by treaty.
Under the , the land that the pipeline is being built on is still the unceded and sovereign territory of the Oceti Sakowin (Sioux Nation). As such, the Standing Rock Sioux should have been consulted before the pipeline was approved. The Army Corps of Engineers said that “additional discussion and analysis are warranted in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s dispossessions of lands.” According to Ladonna Brave Bull Allard, Standing Rock Tribal Historian and director of the Camp of the Sacred Stones, the pipeline contractors are ignoring “pending legal action taken by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other Oceti Sakowin tribes,” “treaty law,” and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Construction of the pipeline has already damaged sacred burial sites and other culturally significant areas.
**Background**
The Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile-long pipeline to transport shale oil from the North Dakota Bakken oil fields to Patoka, Illinois, to link with other pipelines. Construction was completed in Apr. 2017 and the pipeline went into service in June 2017. [1] [3] [37]
In Apr. 2016 members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe created the Sacred Stone Camp near where the pipeline was slated to cross under the Missouri River to protest impending construction of the DAPL because of concerns about environmental impact, possible water contamination, and destruction of sacred burial grounds. Since then conflicts between demonstrators and law enforcement resulted in injuries and hundreds of arrests.
Native American tribal leaders and activists wanted President Obama to halt the DAPL, while North Dakota’s governor and two of its congressmen called on the president to approve the pipeline and end protests. [24] [25] President Obama indicated before the Nov. 8, 2016 election that alternate routes might be considered and said he would let the situation “play out for several more weeks.” [26]
In July 2016 the US Army Corps of Engineers granted the final permits for pipeline construction to Dakota Access, the subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners building the pipeline. In response the Standing Rock Sioux filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging multiple violations of federal law during the permitting process. [12] However, construction of the pipeline began as scheduled, so the tribe filed a request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction until their court case was decided. On Aug. 10, 2016, a coalition of Native American tribes and other activists began a blockade of the pipeline to prevent continued construction. [3]
As news spread of the blockade, hundreds of people began arriving at the original Sacred Stone Camp. A larger camp, known as the Oceti Sakowin Camp, was formed to house thousands of new supporters. Representatives from 300 Native American tribes, along with other allies, have joined the Standing Rock Sioux to demand the pipeline construction be halted. [2]
Since the blockade began, a series of escalating confrontations occurred between pipeline opponents, many of whom call themselves “water protectors,” and various private, local, and state law enforcement agents who have been protecting the pipeline and trying to prevent disruption of the construction.
On Sep. 3, 2016, a major escalation occurred when private security working for Dakota Access used dogs and pepper spray on a group of Native Americans and allies who walked onto an active pipeline construction site to disrupt operations. [4]
On Sep. 9, 2016, the Standing Rock Tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction was denied. In response, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, and the Department of the Interior issued a joint statement pausing construction of the pipeline, pending further review, on the federal land bordering the area where the pipeline is to be bored beneath the Missouri River. Although the government requested that Dakota Access voluntarily stop work 20 miles east or west of the Missouri River, the company continued with construction. [11]
Another major confrontation occurred on Oct. 28, 2016, when over 300 police officers in riot gear, accompanied by armored vehicles, moved in to clear an encampment and road barricades that had been set up to prevent construction of a section of the pipeline. [5] [6]
On Nov. 14, 2016, the Army Corps review concluded that permission to construct the pipeline “on or under Corps land” bordering the Missouri River could not occur until further review was undertaken, and encouraged the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s involvement in the process. [1] In response, Dakota Access filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers and continued with construction of the pipeline on lands not under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps. [12]
On Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016, a major clash occurred between law enforcement and 400 people trying to remove a road barricade set up by law enforcement to block traffic on Highway 1806 near the Oceti Sakowin encampment. Nearly 300 people were treated for injuries, some life threatening, and 26 people were taken to area hospitals. [7][8][9] According to the Morton County Sheriff ‘s Department, between when protest activity against the pipeline began and Nov. 14, 2016, at least 473 individuals were arrested. [10]
The pipeline carried oil for over 3 years before being shut down by a federal court order, pending an environmental review, in July 2020. [38]
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals’ sake and to ensure reliable test results.
Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Rachel Rubino, attending veterinarian and director of the animal facility at Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, said, “Most people who work with research animals love those animals… We want to give them the best lives possible, treat them humanely.” At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s animal research facility, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a “toy rotation program” provides opportunities for play.
**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…
|
# Pokémon Go - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The game is a boon to local businesses.
As people explore their towns while playing the app, they are discovering new shops, restaurants, and more. This increase in foot traffic is a boost to businesses.
“With Pokémon Go, businesses have an unprecedented opportunity to create strong emotional bonds with new customers, and for very little money,” wrote business expert Walter Chen. Some stores around the country have reported an increase in sales between 5 and 30 percent.
When local businesses began to close during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, Niantic launched the Local Business Recovery Initiative on June 15, 2020. Players nominated their favorite local small businesses to have a storefront integrated into the Pokémon Go app for a year for free.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Pokémon Go had more than 21 million daily active users in the United States in its debut week in July 2016, becoming the most popular US mobile game ever. It has surpassed social media apps such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Twitter for daily use on Android devices. [1] [2] The basic premise of the game is that players try to capture Pokémon in a kind of scavenger hunt that uses the GPS on their mobile phones while walking around in the real world. The game’s slogan is “Gotta catch ’em all.” [3]
As of July 8, 2020, Pokémon Go was still the most popular location-based game with 576.7 million unique downloads globally in the game’s first four years. The game is estimated to have earned $3.6 billion worldwide since 2016, with $445.3 million in the first half of 2020 during COVID-19 (coronavirus) lockdowns, via micro-transactions within the game. [18]
|
# Should the Voting Age be Lowered in the US? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Kids under the age of 18 aren't mature enough to participate in elections.
Experts say that 16- and 17-year-olds demonstrate lower interest in politics, have less political knowledge, and lack the experience needed to participate in elections.
Social scientists Tak Wing Chan, PhD, and Matthew Clayton, DPhil, say that 16- and 17-year-olds wouldn’t be competent voters because “research in neuroscience suggests that the brain, specifically the prefrontal cortex, is still undergoing major reconstruction and development during the teenage years,” and added that the prefrontal cortex is what “enables us to weigh dilemmas, balance trade-offs and, in short, make reasonable decisions in politics.”
People under 18 are subject to different labor, contract, and criminal responsibility laws, and aren’t allowed to join the military without parental consent or serve on a jury. Most are still living at home and would be influenced by the voting choices of their parents.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
From the 1990s to the present, elected officials in several US states have made unsuccessful attempts to lower the voting age to 16, and sometimes even younger. [1] Student activism in the wake of the Feb. 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, brought new life to the debate about letting younger people vote in elections. [2]
Internationally, about a dozen countries allow citizens to vote at age 16, sometimes with conditions such as being employed or married, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. [48]
A constitutional amendment to lower the US voting age to 16 would require approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states). [3] Alternatively, state legislatures could pass laws allowing younger people to vote in their states. [4]
Until the 1970s, the voting age in America was 21. [43] A debate over lowering it to 18 began during World War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreased the military draft age to 18. [44] President Eisenhower called for citizens ages 18 to 21 to be included in the political process in his 1954 State of the Union address. [44] But lawmakers didn’t take action until marches and demonstrations drew attention to the fact that young people who were being drafted to fight in Vietnam did not have the ability to vote in most states. [43]
Congress proposed the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1971, which stated, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” [45] The ratification process, which required approval from 38 states, was completed in about three months, the shortest amount of time of any amendment in US history. [46]
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms do not stop bullying and may increase violent attacks.
Tony Volk, PhD, Associate Professor at Brock University, stated, “Overall, there is no evidence in bullying literature that supports a reduction in violence due to school uniforms.” A peer-reviewed study found that “school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools.” A Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. According to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms.
**Background**
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).
Proponents say that school uniforms make schools safer for students, create a “level playing field” that reduces socioeconomic disparities, and encourage children to focus on their studies rather than their clothes.
Opponents say school uniforms infringe upon students’ right to express their individuality, have no positive effect on behavior and academic achievement, and emphasize the socioeconomic disparities they are intended to disguise. Read more background…
|
# Is Cell Phone Radiation Safe?'
**Argument**
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen.
On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (group 2B agents).
The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found “limited evidence of carcinogenicity” from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar.
**Background**
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects. Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans.
**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**
Privatizing prisons can reduce prison overpopulation, making the facilities safer for inmates and employees.
According to Emily Widra, staff member at the Prison Policy Initiative, overpopulation is “correlated with increased violence, lack of adequate health care, limited programming and educational opportunities, and reduced visitation.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, the risks have been even higher as the infection rates were higher in prisons operating at 94% to 102% capacity than in those operating at 84% capacity.
In 2020, nine state prison systems were operating at 100% capacity or above, with Montana at the highest with 121%. Another nine state systems were operating at 90% to 99% capacity or above. The Bureau of Prisons (the US federal system) was operating at 103% capacity.
Austill Stuart, Director of Privatization and Government Reform at the Reason Foundation, explained, “As governments at every level continue to face financial pressures and challenges delivering basic services, contracting provides a tool that enables corrections agencies to better manage costs, while also delivering better outcomes. Performance-based contracts for private prisons, especially contracts tied to reducing recidivism rates, have the possibility of delivering significant improvements that, over the long-term, reduce the overall prison population and help those who are released from jail stay out for good.”
Private prisons can offer overcrowded, underfunded, and overburdened government prisons an alternative by simply removing prisoners from overpopulated state and federal prisons and housing the inmates in a private facility. As prisoner populations lower, so too will the dangers correlated with overcrowding.
**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]
|
# Hockey Fighting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Fighting is a hockey tradition that exists in the official rules and as an unwritten code among players.
98% of NHL players surveyed in 2012 said they do not want to ban fighting in hockey. Fighting is an essential part of the professional game, and it is governed by the NHL rulebook.
Ross Bernstein, the author of the book The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL, stated that “hockey is, and always has been, a sport steeped in a culture of violence. Players have learned, however, to navigate through its mazes and labyrinths of physical contact by adhering to an honor code of conduct.”
The code dictates who can fight and for what reasons, and has reportedly existed for over 100 years. The fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code.
**Background**
“I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out,” the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield once joked. [1]
In the 2016-2017 National Hockey League (NHL) season, there were 372 fights out of 1,230 games – an average of 0.3 fights per game. [2] Fighting in hockey has been banned nearly everywhere outside of the NHL, including youth games, college play, and the Winter Olympics. [3][4]
Fighting has been part of NHL hockey since the league’s formation in 1917 and its 1922 rule about what was then called “fisticuffs” (that’s an old-fashioned word for fighting). [5][6] The current NHL rulebook addresses fighting in Rule 46, which defines a fight as at least one player punching or taking a swing at another player repeatedly, or players wrestling in a way that is difficult to break up. Players who fight are sent to the penalty box during the game, and may be subject to additional fines or suspensions. [6][7]
In the early 1960s, there was a fight in about 20% of NHL games. That percentage increased to 100% by the 1980s, when there was an average of one fight every game. [8] In 1992, the NHL introduced an instigator rule adding an extra two minutes in the penalty box for anyone caught starting a fight. [9]
Fighting has since decreased: a fight broke out in 29-40% of NHL games from the 2000/2001 season to the 2013/2014 season. Games with fights have steadily decreased since, from 27% of games in the 2014/2015 season to 17% in the 2018/2019 season. [2]
Should Fighting Be Allowed in Hockey?
Pro 1
Allowing fighting makes the sport safer overall by holding players accountable.
Professional hockey is a fast-moving sport, and referees often miss illegal body checking, hits with hockey sticks, and other aggressive plays. Retaliation by fighting brings accountability and prevents more of those dangerous plays from happening. [10]
Hockey players don’t fight just for the sake of violence; combat within the context of the game serves as a deterrent to hurting star players because the aggressors know there will be pay back.
Steven Stamkos, a forward for the Tampa Bay Lightning, said, “You have to police yourselves sometimes on the ice… When you see a fight now it’s a response, someone didn’t like something that was done on the ice. I think you need that. It’s healthy.” [11]
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated that fighting may prevent other injuries in a fast-moving, emotional, and intensely physical game. [12] Former professional player Brandon Prust agreed, stating, “If they take fighting out… I guarantee more people will get hurt from an increase in open-ice body checks.” [13]
Read More
Pro 2
Fighting draws fans and increases the game's entertainment value.
A majority of hockey fans oppose a fighting ban and think the on-ice scuffles are a significant part of the game at the pro level, according to a poll in the Toronto Star newspaper. [19] Travis Hughes, SB Nation hockey writer, said, “Fighting exists in hockey because we enjoy watching people fight.” [20]
Hockey fight clips get shown on ESPN’s SportsCenter and have millions of views on YouTube. [21] Brawls increase attendance: an economic study of hockey found that “violence, specifically fighting, tends to attract fans in large numbers across the United States and Canada.” [22] Fights help the NHL stand out from other sports because no other team sports sanction brawling.
SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross wrote, “Fights can add entertainment value, change a game and have fans talking for days.” [23]
Rich Clune, a Maple Leafs forward and long-time fighter, said, “I think the NHL is cognizant of the fact that they can’t eliminate it and turn it into a non-contact sport because I don’t think it’ll sell… especially in America where the game is still growing.” [24]
Read More
Pro 3
Fighting is a hockey tradition that exists in the official rules and as an unwritten code among players.
98% of NHL players surveyed in 2012 said they do not want to ban fighting in hockey. [30] Fighting is an essential part of the professional game, and it is governed by the NHL rulebook. [7]
Ross Bernstein, the author of the book The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL, stated that “hockey is, and always has been, a sport steeped in a culture of violence. Players have learned, however, to navigate through its mazes and labyrinths of physical contact by adhering to an honor code of conduct.” [10]
The code dictates who can fight and for what reasons, and has reportedly existed for over 100 years. [10] The fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code. [29]
Read More
Con 1
Fighting in hockey leads to concussions, mental health problems, and death.
Charles H. Tator, PhD, MD, neurosurgeon, believes fighting causes 10% of all concussions in hockey. [14]
NHL officials expressed in private emails their views that fighting can lead to concussions, long-term health problems, and heavy use of pain medication. Bill Daly, NHL Deputy Commissioner, wrote, “Fighting raises the incidence of head injuries/concussions, which raises the incidence of depression onset, which raises the incidence of personal tragedies.” [15]
Former NHL player Derek Boogaard filled an unofficial role known as an enforcer, which is a player whose purpose is to fight as a means of responding to dirty plays by the opposing team. [16] After he died at age 28 in 2011, doctors examined Boogaard’s brain and determined that he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is believed to be caused by repeated head injuries. [17]
Two other enforcers died within four months of each that same year, raising concerns about the physical, as well as mental and emotional, toll that fighting takes on players. [18]
Read More
Con 2
Fighting at the professional level sets a bad example for kids.
Even though fighting in youth leagues is banned, young hockey players constantly imitate the tactics used by professionals, both legal and illegal. [25]
The damaging physical effects of fighting are even more significant for young players, since their brains are not fully developed. For younger players, concussions can cause permanent learning and cognitive disabilities, many of which may not be recognized until they grow up. [26]
Young hockey players are already susceptible to catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury, at nearly four times the rate of young football players. [27]
Michael Cusimano, MD, neurosurgeon, said, “Whatever is done at a professional level in sports is emulated almost immediately by children who idolize their heroes. NHL players also have to be aware of this and set a better example for our kids.” [28]
Most of what players are trying to accomplish through fighting can be done by having the referees call more penalties during the game, which sends a better message to kids about conflict resolution. [29]
Read More
Con 3
Fighting in hockey glorifies violence.
Matthew Sekeres, writer at Globe and Mail, said that “Hockey is a sport that solves its problems with violence.” [32]
Allowing hockey players to fight creates a culture in which fighting is respected and valued, according to a study in the journal Men and Masculinities, which stated, “The findings of this study indicate that interpersonal aggression is common in the lives of these hockey players, both on and off the ice.” [31]
When the use of violence is approved and legitimized among hockey players, they are more likely to participate in other forms of violence.
For instance, a study found that people seeking a career in professional hockey are more likely to commit sexual assault and have abusive relationships than non-hockey players and people who play hockey as a hobby. [33][37][38]
Researchers have found that hockey violence makes fans more hostile in the stands and off the rink. [34][35][36]
Read More
Click for an Encyclopaedia Britannica video about hockey.
Discussion Questions
1.Should fighting be allowed in hockey? Explain your answer.
2. Should fighting be allowed in any sport? Which sports? Why or why not?
3. How should inter-player conflicts be resolved in hockey and other sports? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Consider this NBC Sports article with explanations from hockey players about why they fight.
2. Evaluate the NHL’s rules on “fisticuffs.”
3. Examine ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski’s argument that fighting in hockey is at a low and should stay that way.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Sports Illustrated, “Wit and Wisdom of Hockey,” si.com, Oct. 1, 2013
2.David M. Singer, “NHL Fight Stats,” hockeyfights.com (accessed Mar. 9, 2021)
3.Jeff Z. Klein, “No Fights. No Checking. Can This Be Hockey?,” nytimes.com, Mar. 5, 2011
4.Mike Brophy, “Fighting in NHL Is Down Naturally, but Now Is the Time to Ban It Outright,” thehockeynews.com, Nov. 14, 2015
5.Jeff Z. Klein, “Hockey’s History, Woven with Violence,” nytimes.com, Dec. 10, 2011
6.Graham Flanagan, “This Is Why Fighting Is Allowed in Pro Hockey — and Why the NHL Has No Plans to Ban It,” businessinsider.com, Feb. 18, 2017
7.National Hockey League, “Official Rules,” nhl.com, 2017
8.Gregory DeAngelo, Brad R. Humphreys, and Imke Reimers, “Community and Specialized Enforcement: Complements or Substitutes?,” ssrn.com, Mar. 23, 2016
9.Adam Greuel, “Is the NHL Instigator Rule Really Necessary?,” bleacherreport.com, July 23, 2008
10.John Buccigross, “The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL,” espn.com, Jan. 8, 2007
11.Chris Kuc, “Why Is Fighting Vanishing from the NHL?,” chicagotribune.com, Feb. 6, 2016
12.Sports Illustrated, “Commissioner Gary Bettman Fights to Keep Fighting in NHL,” si.com, June 27, 2016
13.Brandon Prust, “Why We Fight,” theplayerstribune.com, Feb. 3, 2015
14.Jeff Z. Klein, “In Debate about Fighting in Hockey, Medical Experts Weigh In,” nytimes.com, Dec. 12, 2011
15.John Branch, “In Emails, N.H.L. Officials Conceded Concussion Risks of Fights,” nytimes.com, Mar. 28, 2016
16.Sporting Charts, “Enforcer,” sportingcharts.com (accessed Feb. 27, 2018)
17.John Branch, “Derek Boogaard: A Brain ‘Going Bad,'” nytimes.com, Dec. 5, 2011
18.Tom Cohen, “Three Hockey Enforcers Die Young in Four Months, Raising Questions,” cnn.com, Sep. 2, 2011
19.Chris Zelkovich, “Hockey Fans Love Fighting, Survey Says,” thestar.com, Mar. 17, 2009
20.Travis Hughes, “Why Do Hockey Players Fight?,” sbnation.com, Oct. 14, 2011
21.Sean McIndoe, “The Seven Levels of Dirty Hockey,” grantland.com, Feb. 19, 2013
22.Rodney J. Paul, “Variations in NHL Attendance: The Impact of Violence, Scoring, and Regional Rivalries,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2003
23.John Buccigross, “Here’s Why Fighting Is Making a Small Comeback in the NHL,” espn.com, Oct. 21, 2008
24.Jonas Siegel, “NHL Fight Numbers Continue to Decline,” cbc.ca, Apr. 6, 2016
25.Glenn Keays and B. Pless, “Influence of Viewing Professional Ice Hockey on Youth Hockey Injuries,” Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, Mar. 2013
26.Nicola Davis, “Childhood Concussion Linked to Lifelong Health and Social Problems,” theguardian.com, Aug. 23, 2016
27.Anthony Marchie and Michael D. Cusimano, “Bodychecking and Concussions in Ice Hockey: Should Our Youth Pay the Price?,” CMAJ, July 2003
28.Michael Cusimano, “Why We Need to Fix Fighting in Hockey and the NHL: Our Kids,” theglobeandmail.com, Mar. 25, 2017
29.Nadav Goldschmied and Samantha Espindola, “‘I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?,” Sports Health, Sep. 2013
30.Greg Wyshynski, “Once again, NHL Players Voice Overwhelming Opposition to Fighting Ban,” yahoo.com, Feb. 20, 2012
31.Nick T. Pappas, Patrick C. McKenry, and Beth Skilken Catlett, “Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off the Ice: Athlete Violence and Aggression in Hockey and Interpersonal Relationships,” Men and Masculinities, Jan. 2004
32.Matthew Sekeres, “Hockey Can Bring out the Violence in Peaceful Canadians,” theglobeandmail.com, June 17, 2011
33.Gorden A. Bloom and Michael D. Smith, “Hockey Violence: A Test of Cultural Spillover Theory,” Sociology of Sport Journal, Mar. 1996
34.W. Andrew Harrell, “Verbal Aggressiveness in Spectators at Professional Hockey Games: The Effects of Tolerance of Violence and Amount of Exposure to Hockey,” Human Relations, Aug. 1981
35.Leonard Berkowitz and Joseph T. Alioto, “The Meaning of an Observed Event as a Determinant of Its Aggressive Consequences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nov. 1973
36.Elaine Cassel and Douglas A. Bernstein, Criminal Behavior, 2013
37.Shady Elien, “Link between Hockey and Rape Studied,” straight.com, May 12, 2010
38.Michael Kasdan, “Hockey, Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse: Time for Change,” goodmenproject.com, Oct. 7, 2016
More Sports Debate Topics
Should Colleges and Universities Pay College Athletes? – Proponents say colleges profit unfairly off of the athletes. Opponents say the athletes are paid in tuition.
Should Performance-Enhancing Drugs Be Accepted in Sports? – The debate about doping in sports explores criminalization, types of drugs, and the olympics.
Are the Olympic Games an Overall Benefit for Their Host Countries and Cities? – Proponents say hosting the Olympics boosts local economies. Opponents say the games are a financial drain on host cities.
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies.
Almost 64% of the water being bottled comes from municipal supplies, which can drain water sources relied upon by local communities.
Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo continued to bottle and export water from public lands and municipal supplies in California during times of drought, even when a 25% reduction in water use was imposed on cities and municipalities in the state.
In Michigan, the state allowed Nestlé to pump and bottle clean water from the state’s reserves while local residents in Flint fought for access to clean water.
In Pakistan, groundwater levels were depleted in a village neighboring a Nestlé bottled water production plant, resulting in the local water supply turning to sludge.
According to Matthew Davis, PhD, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, “during droughts, bottling plants could dry up wells and wetlands or deplete the streamflows in the immediate area.”
**Background**
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028. [50] [51] [52]
Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles. [49]
In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park. [17] [26] [44]
|
# Daylight Saving Time Pros and Cons - Top Advantages and Disadvantages'
**Argument**
Daylight Saving Time (DST) is bad for your health.
Changing sleep patterns, even by one hour, goes against a person’s natural circadian rhythms and has negative consequences for health. One study found that the risk of a heart attack increases 10% the Monday and Tuesday following the spring time change.
Researchers found an increase in cluster headaches (sudden and debilitating headaches) after the fall time change.
James Wyatt, PhD, Associate Professor at Rush University Medical Center, stated, “We’re encountering an increase in extra auto and workplace accidents on Monday or perhaps even carrying through the first week of the Spring time shift.”
In the weeks following the spring DST time change, male suicide rates rose in Australia compared to the weeks following the return to standard time in the fall.
DST increases the risk that a car accident will be fatal by 5-6.5% and results in over 30 more deaths from car accidents annually.
**Background**
In the United States, Daylight Saving Time (DST) began on Sunday, Mar. 13, 2022 at 2am with clocks “springing forward,” and will end on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022, when clocks will “fall back” to Standard Time.
DST was implemented in the United States nationally on Mar. 31, 1918 as a wartime effort to save an hour’s worth of fuel (gas or oil) each day to light lamps and coal to heat homes. It was repealed nationwide in 1919, and then maintained by some individual localities (such as New York City) in what Time Magazine called “a chaos of clocks” until 1966 when the Uniform Time Act made DST consistent nationwide. [8]
DST has been “permanently” implemented nationwide twice, once during World War II and once in the 1970s. As the war ended, only 17% wanted to keep “war time” (DST) year round. In the winter of 1973-1974, DST was used to conserve fuel during the energy crisis. 53% opposed keeping DST, probably because in some parts of the country (primarily western edges of time zones) wouldn’t see the sun rise until after 9am. [39] [40]
63 countries used Daylight Saving Time in 2021, while 9 countries used DST in some jurisdictions and not others (like the United States), and 173 countries did not use DST in 2021. In the United States, 48 states participate in Daylight Saving Time. Arizona, Hawaii, some Amish communities, and the American territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not observe DST. [36] [37] [38]
55% of Americans said they are not disrupted by the time change, 28% report a minor disruption, and 13% said the change is a major disruption. However, 40% of Americans would prefer to stay in Standard Time all year and 31% would prefer to stay in Daylight Saving Time all year, eliminating the time change. 28% of Americans would keep the time change twice a year. [20] [34]
On Mar. 15, 2022, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill that would make DST permanent as of Nov. 20, 2023 if approved by the House and signed by President Biden. The delay is meant to give airlines and other transportation providers time to adjust to the change as they set schedules months ahead of time. [41]
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Vouchers allow parents to choose their child’s education.
Parents pay taxes for education and should be able to use those tax dollars to educate their children however and at whichever school they want.
Chuck Weisenbach, Principal of Roncalli High, a private high school in Indianapolis, stated. “It is not the government’s responsibility to tell me where to educate my children… That’s not only my right, it’s my duty. And I shouldn’t have the government telling me based on some random, geographic location that I have to go to this public high school.”
Vouchers also allow parents to choose a school that best fits a child’s religious, cultural, or racial background, allowing that child to perform better in school, at home, and in their community.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
School vouchers are state- or school district-funded scholarships that allow students to attend a private school of the family’s choice rather than sending the child to public school.
According to EdChoice, in the 2018-2019 school year, 18 states and DC had one or more voucher programs: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. At least 188,424 students received vouchers that school year. [21]
Though two state voucher programs have existed since the 19th century–Vermont (1869) and Main (1873)–the current debate began with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, instituted in 1990. [21]
In 2002, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s Cleveland Scholarship Program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The ruling held that the voucher program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if vouchers were used for religious schools. [22]
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care could lower doctors’ earnings.
The Medicare system in the United States is a single-payer system where government pays for health care bills, and between 1998 and 2009 it reduced physician payments in three different years. In 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported that private insurance payments were, on average, 200% higher than payments made by Medicare for certain treatments such as radiation therapy or MRI scans and 89% higher for hospital admissions. In Canada and the United Kingdom, where there is a universal right to health care, physicians have incomes 15-51% lower than US doctors. In the United States, the average physician income is $299,000 compared to $256,062 in Canada, and $147,778 in 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…
|
# Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Banning bottled water would reduce waste and protect the environment.
About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the United States were not recycled in 2015, which means the majority end up in landfills or in the oceans, harming the ecosystem and poisoning animals.
Plastic water bottles were the third most commonly collected trash during the Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup behind cigarette butts and plastic food wrappers. By 2050, estimates suggest there will be more plastic waste by weight in the oceans than fish.
Almost all plastic water bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the raw materials for which are derived from crude oil and natural gas. The Pacific Institute found that producing enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006 took about 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, American consumption of bottled water has increased 65% from 8.3 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.7 billion gallons in 2017, increasing the need for more plastic water bottles and thus more oil and gas.
Between 2012 and 2016, a ban on plastic water bottles in 23 US National Parks prevented (per year) up to 2 million plastic water bottles being purchased and up to 111,743 pounds of PET being produced.
A nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded.
**Background**
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028. [50] [51] [52]
Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles. [49]
In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park. [17] [26] [44]
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional.
While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return.
**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…
|
# Historic Statue Removal - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The statues are a painful reminder of past and present institutionalized racism in the United States.
, Jr., PhD, Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, notes that “enduringly charged symbols of the former Confederacy… [add] to our fears that, instead of embracing the promise of democracy in a diverse society, some want to return us to a far more restrictive time, when freedom was circumscribed by race.”
“We can’t get to learning from our history if we keep accepting that racism should be celebrated in American history,” according to Khalil Gibran Muhammad, PhD, Professor of History, Race and Public Policy at Harvard University
The statues were built to honor and enforce white supremacist views, and the intent or damaging effect have not been erased by time.
A black resident of Richmond, Virginia, Tommye Finley, remarked of the city’s Monument Avenue, which is home to five Confederate statues, “When I first moved here from Mississippi, I thought these statues were ridiculous. Why build a street for losers?… Psychologically, it’s perpetuating a system. It’s saying, ‘We still have the upper hand.’”
Finley hit not only on the current psychological impact of the statues, but also on the intended historical impact. As James Grossman, PhD, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, notes, “It’s not just that the statues represent white supremacy, but the purpose of building the statues was the perpetuation of white supremacy. This is why they put them up in the first place; to affirm the centrality of white supremacy to Southern culture.”
Because the statues were intended to promote white supremacy, Richard Rose, President of Atlanta’s NAACP, argues, “You can’t contextualize racism or compromise on racism.” He states that the contextualization plaques added to Atlanta’s Confederate statues “establish that racism is valid.”
The statues still appeal to white supremacists, as demonstrated by the 2017 rally to defend the Lee and Jackson statues in Virginia and in Dylan Roof’s 2015 pre-massacre tour of plantations and a Confederate museum.
Monuments are ultimately about which values we want to honor and put on public display. For example, the Confederate statues in the Capitol building “should embody our highest ideals as Americans, expressing who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation. Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals. Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed,” according to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Further, Americans pay to have Confederate statues and the associated values on display. A 2018 investigation published in the Smithsonian Magazine found that over the prior ten years at least $40 million in taxpayer dollars were allocated for Confederate statues, other monuments, and heritage organizations.
As Karen Cox, PhD, Historian of the American South at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, concludes, “The state is giving the stamp of approval to these Lost Cause ideas, and the money is a symbol of that approval. What does that say to black citizens of the state, or other citizens, or to younger generations?”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While the debate whether Confederate statues should be taken down has been gaining momentum for years, the issue gained widespread attention after the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter was said to have glorified the Confederate South, posing in Facebook photos with the Battle Flag of the Northern Virginia Army (also known now as the “Confederate flag,” though it never represented the Confederate States) and touring historical Confederate locations before the shooting. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The issue rose to prominence again in 2017 after an Aug. 12 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent and deadly. The rally protested the proposed removal of statues of Confederate Army Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. [5]
The Virginia statues still stood amid the protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, though they were tagged with graffiti then (and later removed on July 10, 2021). During the global Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, calls to take down the statues were met with citizens not only actively damaging or removing statues of Confederate figures, but targeting statues of slave-holding Founding Fathers in general, as well as historic monuments to Abraham Lincoln and abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [54]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 59 Confederate statues and nine markers or plaques were removed from public land in 19 US states between June 17, 2015 and July 6, 2020. The SPLC reported at least 160 monuments were removed in 2020 after George Floyd’s death, more than the prior four years combined At last count, about 704 Confederate monuments remained on public land. [14] [55]
In June 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to remove all confederate statues and bust of Roger B. Taney (the US Supreme Court Chief Justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision) from the US Capitol’s Statuary Hall. Taney’s bust was replaced with one of Thurgood Marshall. On July 13, 2022, Florida erected a statue of Mary McLeod Bethune to replace their confederate soldier statue. Bethune’s is the first state-commissioned statue of a Black person to be included in Statuary Hall. [56]
|
# Should the US Government Regulate Prescription Drug Prices?'
**Argument**
The US federal government is already over-involved in healthcare and should leave prescription drugs to the free market.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover at least one drug from every (USP) category and class.
Because of this requirement, patients should be able to find a drug, covered by insurance, that will treat most conditions. The cost debate is largely over relatively few name-brand drugs.
Tom Coburn, the late former Senator (R-OK), explained, “The problem with drug prices… is not that they start out expensive, but that they stay expensive for years after they have been on the market. The main culprit here is the regulatory environment that limits the creation of a free, functioning and competitive market for prescription drugs…. Rather than doubling down on government regulation, we should rely on the free market, which is the best way to allocate these scarce resources, increase competition, lower prices and continue to foster medical innovation for years to come.”
Other free market options include making more drugs available over-the-counter (OTC) such as birth control pills and statins, which are available OTC in other countries and would lower costs if available OTC in the United States; and deregulating the ban on marketing or sharing information about drugs in research with insurers and doctors, which would lower advertising costs after FDA approval.
Further, most Americans support allowing drug imports from Canada: 79% of Independents, 78% of Democrats, and 76% of Republicans.
Americans should be able to import drugs from Canada and Mexico. Drug companies lobbied to ban drug imports to prevent competition that would lead to American companies having to reduce their prices.
A 2019 Vice investigation found patients were crossing the border into Mexico to buy Novolog insulin pens for $17 because the cost in the United States jumped from $289 in 2013 to $540 in 2019. Other insulin prices also rose: Humalog went up from $35 in 2001 to $234 in 2015, and Lantus from $244 to $431.
**Background**
With 79% of Americans saying prescription drug costs are “unreasonable,” and 70% reporting lowering prescription drug costs as their highest healthcare priority, the popular prescription drug debate is not whether drug costs should be reduce but how to reduce prescription drug costs. One consideration is whether the United States federal government should regulate prescription drug prices. [1]
A prescription drug is a medication that may only be obtained with a medical professional’s recommendation and authorization. In some US states, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, and other medical professionals are permitted to write prescriptions in addition to doctors. Prescription drugs are generally divided into two categories: brand-name drugs and generic drugs. [2] [3]
In the United States, drug companies (also called pharmaceutical companies) set prescription drug prices, which are largely unregulated by the US federal government. Some drug companies will be familiar due to their names being attached to COVID-19 vaccines or other common products: Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, for example. Others may not be household names but command large portions of the market nonetheless: Swiss companies Roche and Novartis, to name two. [4] Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
A gold standard would force the United States to reduce its military and defense spending and could prevent unnecessary wars.
According to Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX) “fiat money enable[s] government to maintain an easy war policy… To be truly opposed to preemptive and unnecessary wars one must advocate sound money to prevent the promoters of war from financing their imperialism.”
The government’s ability to limitlessly print fiat paper money allows it to fund a massive global defense establishment, an estimated 800 bases in 80 or more countries and an operational ground troop presence in at least 15 countries. The US defense budget was $738 billion for 2020. [129] In 2019, defense spending was $732 billion, or about 38% of global defense spending, and almost as much as the next 10 countries’ defense spending combined.
This level of spending would not be possible if the United States returned to a full gold standard.
**Background**
Proponents say the gold standard self-regulates to match supply to demand. Opponents say gold does not provide the price stability for a healthy economy.Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standard where the value of the dollar was backed by gold reserves and paper money could be redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United States dollar has had a fiat currency backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government and not backed by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue that gold retains a stable value that reduces the risk of economic crises, limits government power, would reduce the US trade deficit, and could prevent unnecessary wars by limiting defense spending.
Opponents of the gold standard argue that gold is volatile and would destabilize the economy while disallowing government economic and military intervention, and increasing environmental and cultural harms via mining. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Economy:
Reagan pledged during his 1980 campaign for president to balance the federal budget, but never submitted a balanced budget in his eight years in office. In 1981, the deficit was $79 billion and, in 1986, at the peak of his deficit spending, it stood at $221 billion. The federal debt was $994 billion when he took office in 1981 and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989. Reagan also added more trade barriers than any other president since Hoover in 1930. US imports that were subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Science/Technology:
Reagan was a big supporter of the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA). In his 1984 State of the Union Address, Reagan announced plans for what came to be the International Space Station. On Jan. 30, 1987, Reagan also announced that he planned to fund the building of the Superconducting Super Collider, a $4.5 billion dollar particle accelerator used for high energy physics research.
**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 Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccine-preventable diseases have not disappeared so vaccination is still necessary.
The CDC notes that many vaccine-preventable diseases are still in the United States or “only a plane ride away.” Although the paralytic form of polio has largely disappeared thanks to vaccination, the virus still exists in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan where there were 415, 103, and ten cases respectively between Jan. 2014 and May 14, 2019. The polio virus can be incubated by a person without symptoms for years; that person can then accidentally infect an unvaccinated child (or adult) in whom the virus can mutate into its paralytic form and spread amongst unvaccinated people. Between Jan. 1, 2019 and May 17, 2019, there were 880 individual measles cases reported in 24 states (compared to 372 cases in all of 2018). Of those, 44 cases were directly imported from 12 other countries, including Philippines, Ukraine, Israel, and Thailand. According to the WHO, in Jan. 2019 alone, there were 1,802 cases of measles in Philippines, 13,760 in Ukraine, 290 in Israel, and 797 in Thailand. UNICEF reported that, globally, 453,000 children die from rotavirus, 476,000 die from pneumococcus (the bacterium that causes pneumonia, meningitis, and blood infections), 199,000 die from Hib (a bacterium that causes pneumonia and meningitis), 195,000 die from pertussis (whooping cough), 118,000 die from the measles, and 60,000 die from tetanus each year, all vaccine-preventable diseases.
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times.
According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York’s nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a “megachurch” in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology’s annual income exceeds $500 million.
**Background**
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Environment:
As a president who said “trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” Reagan issued leases for oil, gas, and coal development on tens of millions of acres of national lands. Reagan’s appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Anne Gorsuch, tried to gut the 1972 Clean Water Act, cut EPA funding by 25%, and mismanaged a $1.6 billion program to clean up hazardous waste dumps.
**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…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.
Violent video games require active participation and identification with violent characters, which reinforces violent behavior. Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games.
Child Development and Early Childhood Education expert Jane Katch stated in an interview with Education Week, “I found that young children often have difficulty separating fantasy from reality when they are playing and can temporarily believe they are the character they are pretending to be.”
US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent in Brown v. ESA that “the closer a child’s behavior comes, not to watching, but to acting out horrific violence, the greater the potential psychological harm.”
**Background**
Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…
|
# Should the US Government Regulate Prescription Drug Prices?'
**Argument**
Expanded access to affordable insurance that better serves customers by covering a larger percentage of prescription drug costs would more effectively lower drug costs for patients.
David A. Ricks, CEO of drug company Eli Lilly, explained that drug companies negotiate lower prices for government programs including Medicare and for private insurance companies.
However, Ricks stated, “What the US system does poorly is sharing these negotiated savings with patients who use the medicines. In fact, patient costs for medicines are increasing even while net drug manufacturer prices are decreasing. This paradox exists because no matter how much of a discount an insurer or provider negotiates, most [insurance] plans don’t pass the discount to patients.”
“Policy makers,” suggests Ricks, “need to focus on fixing broken health [insurance] plan designs that shift too much cost to the sick in order to lower premiums for the healthy.”
A 2021 study found that while drug companies offer rebates to health insurance companies, those rebates do not translate to lower out-of-pocket drug costs for customers. The rebates were tied to higher costs for consumers per prescription drug: $6 for those with commercial insurance, $13 for those with Medicare, and $39 for people without insurance.
The study’s authors emphasized that “uninsured individuals were more likely to be in racial minority groups, amplifying pre-existing disparities in healthcare access,” and people who were “uninsured were younger, in poorer health, and… had lower personal income compared with our overall sample
If Congress were to expand affordable, quality insurance with appropriate prescription drug coverage, the drug cost problem could be alleviated, if not eliminated, while providing better healthcare for everyone.
**Background**
With 79% of Americans saying prescription drug costs are “unreasonable,” and 70% reporting lowering prescription drug costs as their highest healthcare priority, the popular prescription drug debate is not whether drug costs should be reduce but how to reduce prescription drug costs. One consideration is whether the United States federal government should regulate prescription drug prices. [1]
A prescription drug is a medication that may only be obtained with a medical professional’s recommendation and authorization. In some US states, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, and other medical professionals are permitted to write prescriptions in addition to doctors. Prescription drugs are generally divided into two categories: brand-name drugs and generic drugs. [2] [3]
In the United States, drug companies (also called pharmaceutical companies) set prescription drug prices, which are largely unregulated by the US federal government. Some drug companies will be familiar due to their names being attached to COVID-19 vaccines or other common products: Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, for example. Others may not be household names but command large portions of the market nonetheless: Swiss companies Roche and Novartis, to name two. [4] Read more background…
|
# Mandatory National Service - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Compulsory service would save the government money and provide benefits to all citizens.
National service programs are a proven cost-effective method to address critical needs in the country. A report from the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education found that youth national service programs in the United States cost a total of $1.7 billion annually and returned a value of $6.5 billion, creating a social benefit of 3.95 times more than the cost. For every one dollar of taxpayer money spent on youth service programs, over two dollars of savings resulted.
The National Park Service estimates that using a civilian conservation corps to maintain national parks saves an average of 65% and as much as 87% on backlogged projects. Policy Study Associates found that schools that had support from the existing national service program City Year AmeriCorps were two to three times more likely to see improvements in English and math proficiency among students.
AmeriCorps members helped 25,000 unemployed coal miners in Eastern Kentucky find jobs in other industries, and contributed to a 26% decrease in violent crime in Detroit by forming neighborhood watches and escorting kids to school. [
If national service were mandatory, just as jury duty is required of everyone, the number of participants would grow and the resulting benefits would be exponentially higher.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Mandatory national service (also called compulsory service) is a requirement that people serve in the military or complete other works of service. Modern propositions for compulsory service envision that young Americans could join the military or do civilian projects such as teaching in low-income areas, helping care for the elderly, or maintaining infrastructure, among other ideas. [2]
Proposals in the United States to implement compulsory trace back to the 1800s. More recently, between 2003 and 2013, former US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) made five unsuccessful attempts to pass the Universal National Service Act, which would have required all people in the United States between ages 18 and 42 to either serve in the military or perform civilian service related to national defense. [1] [34]
The US military draft, created during the Civil War, is one type of mandatory national service. However, although all male US citizens ages 18 to 25 must register with the Selective Service, the United States has an all-volunteer army and hasn’t drafted men into the military since 1973 when around 2.2 million men were drafted into the military during the Vietnam War. [35] [36] [37]
Public opinion on mandatory national service is split: 49% favored one year of required service for young Americans in a 2017 poll, while 45% were opposed. Among adults ages 18 to 29, who would be required to complete the service, 39% were for the proposal and 57% were against. [3]
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Making the Pill OTC would increase the use of hormonal drugs that may disrupt and damage the body.
The FDA notes the side effects of the Pill include changes in sexual desire, bleeding between periods, sore breasts, headaches, and nausea. Some medical practitioners believe that pharmaceutical contraceptives in general are harmful because women are not as aware of their bodies or their natural cycles when taking synthetic hormones.
Holly Grigg-Spall, health author, stated, “Health problems caused by hormonal contraceptives can appear a few months, a few years or longer into use as each woman processes the synthetic chemicals differently. Yet all women will be changed by these drugs. As a woman’s body changes so does her reaction to the pill. The pill’s repression of vital bodily functions that leads to ill health can build in such a way that years later a woman becomes very sick but can not make the connection.”
Lara Briden, a naturopathic doctor, emphasized these concerns are bigger for teens: “Making hormones is not easy. It requires regular ovulation, and that can take a few years to become established. That’s why the early years of menstruation are exactly the wrong time to take hormonal birth control.”
**Background**
Of the 72.2 million American women of reproductive age, 64.9% use a contraceptive. Of those, 9.1 million (12.6% of contraceptive users) use birth control pills, which are the second most commonly used method of contraception in the United States after female sterilization (aka tubal ligation or “getting your tubes tied”). The Pill is currently available by prescription only, and a debate has emerged about whether the birth control pill should be available over-the-counter (OTC), which means the Pill would be available along with other drugs such as Tylenol and Benadryl in drug store aisles. Since 1976, more than 90 drugs have switched from prescription to OTC status, including Sudafed (1976), Advil (1984), Rogaine (1996), Prilosec (2003), and Allegra (2011). Read more background…
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Sea levels are rising at an unprecedented rate due to human activities.
Sea levels rise due to thermal expansion of warming ocean waters and melt water from receding glaciers and the polar ice cap. According to the IPCC, there has been a “substantial” human contribution to the global mean sea-level rise since the 1970s. As much as 87% of the rise in sea levels since 1970 resulted from human activities such as burning fossil fuels.
A study found that “significant acceleration” of sea-level rise occurred from 1870 to 2004. Between 1961 and 2003, global sea levels rose 8 inches; a 2019 UN report said they could rise by 3 feet in the next 80 years, displacing hundreds of millions of people. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the rate of sea level rise over the past century is unprecedented over the last 6,000 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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Despite the 1954 law banning political campaigning by tax-exempt groups, many churches are clearly political and therefore should not be receiving tax exemptions.
Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches’ exemption status. In Oct. 2010, Minnesota pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church endorsed several Republican candidates and dared the “liberal media” to file complaints with the IRS. Brandon later announced on his radio program: “I’m going to explain to you what happened… Nothing happened.”
**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…
|
# Kneeling during the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Kneeling during the national anthem shows disrespect for the flag and members of the armed forces.
The national anthem pays respect to the people who have risked their lives, been injured, or died defending the United States. Carole Isham, a great-great-great-granddaughter of the writer of the national anthem (Francis Scott Key) stated that “it just blows my mind that somebody like (Kaepernick) would do what he does to dishonor the flag of this country and the national anthem when we have young men and women overseas fighting for this country, people that have died for this country.”
Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints quarterback, supported Kaepernick’s message but disagreed with the delivery: “[I]t’s an oxymoron that you’re sitting down, disrespecting that flag that has given you the freedom to speak out.” Brees reiterated his position on June 3, 2020 in the wake of the George Floyd killing. However, in light of the backlash that followed, Brees retracted his statement. In reaction, on June 5, 2020, President Trump tweeted, “OLD GLORY is to be revered, cherished, and flown high… “We should be standing up straight and tall, ideally with a salute, or a hand on heart. There are other things you can protest, but not our Great American Flag – NO KNEELING!”
**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 the US Government Regulate Prescription Drug Prices?'
**Argument**
Without regulation, drug costs are inconsistent and often hidden, leaving doctors struggling to provide appropriate care to their patients.
Doctors frequently do not know and may not have access to prescription drug costs for their patients. Because patients have a variety of insurance policies with varying prescription drug coverage, doctors are left to prescribe drugs without knowing if the patient will be able to afford the drug at the pharmacy.
74% of physicians believe considering patients’ medical benefits is important when choosing which drug to prescribe. And 59% want to be able to compare drug costs at the point of prescription. However, 29% of physicians did not trust the information they could access about prescription drug costs. Additionally, 59% reported that knowledge of their patients’ out-of-pocket prescription drug costs was “high-priority,” but only 11% could access that information easily.
Without prescription drug costs information, doctors are left to guess. In a survey of 371 primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and rheumatologists who were given insurance information for a hypothetical patient, only 20% correctly determined the patient’s out-of-pocket costs for a drug that costs $1,000 per month.
Jules Lipoff, Assistant Professor of Clinical Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, stated “patients appreciate it when doctors have a well-thought-out backup plan (for example, an over-the-counter or other prescription alternative) and bring up costs during an office visit. Patients do not like being told reflexively to call if there’s an issue filling the medication at the pharmacy — that puts the responsibility on them to figure out a complicated system.”
As Lipoff explained, “doctors must remember our responsibility to consider the whole patient, including his or her financial livelihood, and make a point of bringing up the cost of care with each of our patients. If patients with limited means spend more money on medications, that expense means less money for the rest of their budget, with real consequences. With better transparency and advocacy on behalf of our patients, we as physicians must strive for the most cost-effective care.”
Robert Popovian, pharmaceutical economist, asked, “We know that the correct data exist, so why don’t physicians have access to it when they are prescribing these medications?”
For doctors to be able to meet their patients’ needs, they must have accurate cost information. One way to achieve this is via Congressional action to make costs transparent and drugs more affordable.
**Background**
With 79% of Americans saying prescription drug costs are “unreasonable,” and 70% reporting lowering prescription drug costs as their highest healthcare priority, the popular prescription drug debate is not whether drug costs should be reduce but how to reduce prescription drug costs. One consideration is whether the United States federal government should regulate prescription drug prices. [1]
A prescription drug is a medication that may only be obtained with a medical professional’s recommendation and authorization. In some US states, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, and other medical professionals are permitted to write prescriptions in addition to doctors. Prescription drugs are generally divided into two categories: brand-name drugs and generic drugs. [2] [3]
In the United States, drug companies (also called pharmaceutical companies) set prescription drug prices, which are largely unregulated by the US federal government. Some drug companies will be familiar due to their names being attached to COVID-19 vaccines or other common products: Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, for example. Others may not be household names but command large portions of the market nonetheless: Swiss companies Roche and Novartis, to name two. [4] Read more background…
|
# Should College Athletes Be Paid? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
College athletes are risking their bodies as well as their future careers and earning potential to play for colleges and universities while often receiving a sub-par education.
Governor of California Gavin Newsom, stated, “Collegiate student athletes put everything on the line — their physical health, future career prospects and years of their lives to compete. Colleges reap billions from these student athletes’ sacrifices and success but, in the same breath, block them from earning a single dollar. That’s a bankrupt model.”
Zachary Kerr, PhD, Researcher at the University of North Carolina’s Center for the Study of Retired Athletes, stated, “I definitely think research indicates strong evidence that injuries during one’s sports career can potentially be associated with adverse health outcomes later in life.”
In 2017, 67% of former Division I athletes had sustained a major injury and 50% had chronic injuries, 2.5% higher than non-athletes.
Azmatullah Hussaini, MD, President of the New York/New Jersey chapter of the American Muslim Health Professionals, and Jules Lipoff, MD, Assistant Professor of Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, offered additional context: especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, “[g]iven that athletes are disproportionately Black in the biggest revenue-generating sports — football and basketball — this dynamic also evokes America’s horrific history of unpaid slave labor. It’s hard to ignore the racist undertones when the financial benefit to these institutions is based on the unpaid work of young Black men.”
The NCAA requires players to have health insurance but does not pay for that insurance and can refuse to pay medical expenses for sports injuries, some of which can have life-long consequences for the players’ bodies and career opportunities. The NCAA also does not prohibit schools from canceling injured athletes’ scholarships, leaving athletes without a sport or education.
Adding insult to sometimes literal injury, college athletes are also frequently denied the NCAA’s other form of “compensation”: a quality education. As Jon Solomon, Editorial Director for the Sports and Society Program at the Aspen Institute explained, “The most glaring example occurred when the University of North Carolina was found by outside parties to have organized fake classes that enabled dozens of athletes to gain and maintain their eligibility… of the 3,100 students who took the fake classes over 18 years, 47.4 percent were athletes… North Carolina avoided NCAA penalties by essentially arguing that the NCAA should stay out of irregularities in college courses.” The NCAA polices athletes’ finances but does not ensure a quality education.
**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]
|
# Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?'
**Argument**
Standardized tests are racist, classist, and sexist.
The origin of American standardized tests are those created by psychologist Carl Brigham, PhD, for the Army during World War I, which was later adapted to become the SAT. The Army tests were created specifically to segregate soldiers by race, because at the time science inaccurately linked intelligence and race.
Racial bias has not been stripped from standardized tests. W. James Popham, PhD, Professor Emeritus at the University of California at Los Angeles and former test maker, explains how discrimination is purposefully built in to standardized tests, “Traditionally constructed standardized achievements, the kinds that we’ve used in this country for a long while, are intended chiefly to discriminate among students … to say that someone was in the 83rd percentile and someone is at 43rd percentile. And the reason you do that is so you can make judgments among these kids. But in order to do so, you have to make sure that the test has in fact a spread of scores. One of the ways to have that test create a spread of scores is to limit items in the test to socioeconomic variables, because socioeconomic status is a nicely spread out distribution, and that distribution does in fact spread kids’ scores out on a test.”
As Young Whan Choi, Manager of Performance Assessments Oakland Unified School District in Oakland, California, explains, “Too often, test designers rely on questions which assume background knowledge more often held by White, middle-class students. It’s not just that the designers have unconscious racial bias; the standardized testing industry depends on these kinds of biased questions in order to create a wide range of scores.” Choi offers an example from his own 10th grade class, “a student called me over with a question. With a puzzled look, she pointed to the prompt asking students to write about the qualities of someone who would deserve a “key to the city.” Many of my students, nearly all of whom qualified for free and reduced lunch, were not familiar with the idea of a ‘key to the city.’”
Wealthy kids, who would be more familiar with a “key to the city,” tend to have higher standardized test scores due to differences in brain development caused by factors such as “access to enriching educational resources, and… exposure to spoken language and vocabulary early in life.” Plus, as Eloy Ortiz Oakley, MBA, Chancellor of California Community Colleges, points out, “Many well-resourced students have far greater access to test preparation, tutoring and taking the test multiple times, opportunities not afforded the less affluent… [T]hese admissions tests are a better measure of students’ family background and economic status than of their ability to succeed”
Journalist and teacher Carly Berwick explains, “All students do not do equally well on multiple choice tests, however. Girls tend to do less well than boys and perform better on questions with open-ended answers, according to a 2018 study by Stanford University’s Sean Reardon, which found that test format alone accounts for 25 percent of the gender difference in performance in both reading and math. Researchers hypothesize that one explanation for the gender difference on high-stakes tests is risk aversion, meaning girls tend to guess less.”
**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 People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
Human anatomy has evolved to support a primarily vegetarian diet.
Carnivores have large mouths with pointed teeth, short intestines (three to six times body length), and their livers can detoxify the excess vitamin A absorbed from meat. Human teeth are short and flat, we have long intestines (10-11 times body length), and our livers cannot detoxify excess vitamin A.
**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…
|
# Universal Basic Income Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Universal Basic Income (UBI) reduces poverty and income inequality, and improves physical and mental health.
Scott Santens, Founding Member of the Economic Security Project, says that a UBI set at $1,000 per adult per month and $300 per child per month would eradicate US poverty entirely.
The poverty level in Brazil has fallen to the lowest level in 40 years after $100 a month has been distributed to about 25% of the population beginning in Mar. 2020.
Namibia’s UBI program, the Basic Income Grant (trialled in 2007-2012), reduced household poverty rates from 76% of residents before the trial started to 37% after one year. Child malnutrition rates also fell from 42% to 17% in six months.
Participants in India’s UBI trial (2013-2014) said that UBIs helped improve their health by enabling them to afford medicine, improve sanitation, gain access to clean water, eat more regularly, and reduce their anxiety levels.
Mincome, a trial UBI in Manitoba, Canada, in the mid-1970s, found that hospitalizations for accidents, injuries, and mental health diagnoses declined during the trial.
Kenya’s ongoing UBI trial has reportedly led to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and to reduced stress and depression.
Matthew Smith, PhD, Professor in Health History at the University of Strathclyde, stated that UBI could improve a range of mental health concerns and stressful situations proven to deteriorate mental health: “Recent research has linked the stress of poverty with inflammation in the brain… UBI could be set at a level to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. This would reduce much of the stress faced by the working poor or families on benefits… UBI would also help people, usually women and children, to leave abusive relationships. Domestic abuse occurs more often in poorer households, where victims lack the financial means to escape. Similarly, UBI might prevent the negative childhood experiences believed to lead to mental illness and other problems later in life. These include experiencing violence or abuse, or having parents with mental health, substance abuse and legal problems. Behind these problems are often poverty, inequality and social isolation.”
**Background**
A universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status. [45]
Pilot UBI or more limited basic income programs that give a basic income to a smaller group of people instead of an entire population have taken place or are ongoing in Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Namibia, Spain, and The Netherlands as of Oct. 20, 2020 [46]
In the United States, the Alaska Permanent Fund (AFP), created in 1976, is funded by oil revenues. AFP provides dividends to permanent residents of the state. The amount varies each year based on the stock market and other factors, and has ranged from $331.29 (1984) to $2,072 (2015). The payout for 2020 was $992.00, the smallest check received since 2013.[46] [47] [48] [49]
UBI has been in American news mostly thanks to the 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang whose continued promotion of a UBI resulted in the formation of a nonprofit, Humanity Forward. [53]
|
# Homework Pros and Cons - Should Homework Be Banned?'
**Argument**
Homework helps to reinforce classroom learning, while developing good study habits and life skills.
Students typically retain only 50% of the information teachers provide in class, and they need to apply that information in order to truly learn it. Abby Freireich and Brian Platzer, co-founders of Teachers Who Tutor NYC, explained, “at-home assignments help students learn the material taught in class. Students require independent practice to internalize new concepts… [And] these assignments can provide valuable data for teachers about how well students understand the curriculum.”
Elementary school students who were taught “strategies to organize and complete homework,” such as prioritizing homework activities, collecting study materials, note-taking, and following directions, showed increased grades and more positive comments on report cards.
Research by the City University of New York noted that “students who engage in self-regulatory processes while completing homework,” such as goal-setting, time management, and remaining focused, “are generally more motivated and are higher achievers than those who do not use these processes.”
Homework also helps students develop key skills that they’ll use throughout their lives: accountability, autonomy, discipline, time management, self-direction, critical thinking, and independent problem-solving. Freireich and Platzer noted that “homework helps students acquire the skills needed to plan, organize, and complete their work.”
**Background**
From dioramas to book reports, from algebraic word problems to research projects, whether students should be given homework, as well as the type and amount of homework, has been debated for over a century. [1]
While we are unsure who invented homework, we do know that the word “homework” dates back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger asked his followers to practice their speeches at home. Memorization exercises as homework continued through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment by monks and other scholars. [45]
In the 19th century, German students of the Volksschulen or “People’s Schools” were given assignments to complete outside of the school day. This concept of homework quickly spread across Europe and was brought to the United States by Horace Mann, who encountered the idea in Prussia. [45]
In the early 1900s, progressive education theorists, championed by the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal, decried homework’s negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, leading California to ban homework for students under 15 from 1901 until 1917. In the 1930s, homework was portrayed as child labor, which was newly illegal, but the prevailing argument was that kids needed time to do household chores. [1] [2] [45] [46]
Public opinion swayed again in favor of homework in the 1950s due to concerns about keeping up with the Soviet Union’s technological advances during the Cold War. And, in 1986, the US government included homework as an educational quality boosting tool. [3] [45]
A 2014 study found kindergarteners to fifth graders averaged 2.9 hours of homework per week, sixth to eighth graders 3.2 hours per teacher, and ninth to twelfth graders 3.5 hours per teacher. A 2014-2019 study found that teens spent about an hour a day on homework. [4] [44]
Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the very idea of homework as students were schooling remotely and many were doing all school work from home. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss asked, “Does homework work when kids are learning all day at home?” While students were mostly back in school buildings in fall 2021, the question remains of how effective homework is as an educational tool. [47]
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets are more likely to be lost or stolen than print textbooks.
According to research by the tech company Kensington, 70 million smartphones are lost each year, and every 53 seconds, a laptop is stolen. In San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles, robberies related to internet-enabled handheld devices (including tablets) have accounted for 50, 40, and 25 percent respectively of all robberies in one year. Stolen and lost internet-enabled handheld devices have cost Americans more than $30 billion annually.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
There is increasing demand for cruelty-free products.
More than one-third of women only buy cosmetics from brands that do not use animal testing. The market for cruelty-free cosmetics (products not tested on animals) is estimated to reach $10 billion by 2024. At least 37 countries have banned or restricted the sale of cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals, including nations in the European Union. In the US, California became the first state to make it illegal to sell most cosmetics that underwent animal testing.
Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, “We can now create a model from human skin cells — keratinocytes — and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells — melanocytes — to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can’t do that on a mouse or a rabbit.”
**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…
|
# Zoos - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Zoos are detrimental to animals' physical health.
A study of 35 species of carnivores, including brown bears, cheetahs, and lions, found that zoo enclosures were too small for the animals to carry out their normal routines, which led to problems such as pacing and more infant deaths. Polar bears, for example, had an infant mortality rate of 65% due to small enclosures.
About 70% of adult male gorillas in North America have heart disease, the leading cause of death among gorillas in captivity, although the condition is almost completely absent in the wild. Other great apes have similar health problems in captivity.
Captive elephants live about half as long as wild elephants: 18.9 years v. 41.7 years for Asian elephants and 16.9 years v. 35.8 years for African elephants. Of 77 elephants in 13 zoos, 71 were overweight and spent 83% of their time indoors, contributing to early death.
**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.
|
# Daylight Saving Time Pros and Cons - Top Advantages and Disadvantages'
**Argument**
DST promotes active lifestyles.
When the day is lighter later, people tend to participate in more outdoor activities after work.
Hendrik Wolff, PhD, Associate Professor of Economics at Simon Fraser University, stated, because of DST “people engaged in more outdoor recreation and less indoor-TV watching… An additional 3 percent of people engaged in outdoor behaviors who otherwise would have stayed indoors.”
Michael Downing, author of Spring Forward, stated, “Baseball [was] a huge early supporter, too, because there [was] no artificial illumination of parks, so [they could] get school kids and workers to ball games with the extended daylight, they have a later start time.”
**Background**
In the United States, Daylight Saving Time (DST) began on Sunday, Mar. 13, 2022 at 2am with clocks “springing forward,” and will end on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022, when clocks will “fall back” to Standard Time.
DST was implemented in the United States nationally on Mar. 31, 1918 as a wartime effort to save an hour’s worth of fuel (gas or oil) each day to light lamps and coal to heat homes. It was repealed nationwide in 1919, and then maintained by some individual localities (such as New York City) in what Time Magazine called “a chaos of clocks” until 1966 when the Uniform Time Act made DST consistent nationwide. [8]
DST has been “permanently” implemented nationwide twice, once during World War II and once in the 1970s. As the war ended, only 17% wanted to keep “war time” (DST) year round. In the winter of 1973-1974, DST was used to conserve fuel during the energy crisis. 53% opposed keeping DST, probably because in some parts of the country (primarily western edges of time zones) wouldn’t see the sun rise until after 9am. [39] [40]
63 countries used Daylight Saving Time in 2021, while 9 countries used DST in some jurisdictions and not others (like the United States), and 173 countries did not use DST in 2021. In the United States, 48 states participate in Daylight Saving Time. Arizona, Hawaii, some Amish communities, and the American territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not observe DST. [36] [37] [38]
55% of Americans said they are not disrupted by the time change, 28% report a minor disruption, and 13% said the change is a major disruption. However, 40% of Americans would prefer to stay in Standard Time all year and 31% would prefer to stay in Daylight Saving Time all year, eliminating the time change. 28% of Americans would keep the time change twice a year. [20] [34]
On Mar. 15, 2022, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill that would make DST permanent as of Nov. 20, 2023 if approved by the House and signed by President Biden. The delay is meant to give airlines and other transportation providers time to adjust to the change as they set schedules months ahead of time. [41]
|
# Filibuster - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The filibuster promotes compromise and protects the voice and mandate of the minority party.
The filibuster provides a way for minority opinions (and therefore the voices of the constituents of the minority parties) to be heard on the Senate floor, fulfilling the senators’ mandate to govern.
“Far from being simply a weapon of obstruction, the filibuster actually forces compromise.The framers designed the Senate to be a consensus-driven body. If a majority party knows they need to garner 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the necessity of working across the aisle, negotiating, and finding areas of agreement becomes imperative, rather than optional. Without the filibuster as a tool of negotiation, the Senate becomes little more than a smaller version of the House of Representatives where legislation reflects the priorities of the majority, with little regard to concerns of the minority,” explained Rachel Bovard of the Heritage Foundation.
Without the filibuster, the crucial tradition of debate is quashed, leaving the majority party to enact its will without checks or balances. As Thomas Jipping of the Heritage Foundation explained, “World history is full of examples of governments that unless they have limits and controls and checks get really out of control. And the extended debate, the filibuster, that’s part of that system of checks and balances. So it’s a very important part of limiting government at least in the Senate…. [A]fter the 2020 election, the Senate is 50/50. Even before that, it was very closely divided. That narrow majority should not be able to force its will on the very large minority anytime that it wants. So it’s part of that design for our government and I think it’s a very important one.”
Protecting the filibuster is also a case of “what comes around, goes around.” While one party has a slim majority, they may want to eliminate the filibuster to enact their policies. However, as Senator John Thune (R-SD) pointedly remarked, “I encourage my colleagues to think about that time when they will be in the minority again – and to ask themselves whether they really want to eliminate their voices, and the voices of their constituents, in future policy battles.”
**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 Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and, therefore, same sex marriage is immoral and unnatural.
J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.”
A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”
Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated that gay marriage is “inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.”
J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.”
A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”
**Background**
This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future.
On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.
Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.
Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
OTC birth control pills could lower the rate of unintended pregnancies, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
54% of unintended pregnancies were associated with not using contraceptives and 41% with inconsistent use. Unintended pregnancies cost the US federal and state governments $21 billion in 2010, the newest numbers available at the time of publication, with the average cost-per-birth being $12,770 for prenatal care, labor and delivery, postpartum care, and 12 months of infant care ($20,716 for 60 months). The Guttmacher Institute estimated that $15.5 billion dollars could have been saved if the unintended pregnancies had been prevented.
Only 5% of unintended pregnancies have happened while the woman used effective birth control consistently. A study found that women who received a one-year supply of Pills were 30% less likely to have an unplanned pregnancy and 46% less likely to have an abortion. A study comparing Pill use between women who obtained Pills with a prescription from an El Paso, Texas, clinic and women who obtained Pills OTC from Mexico showed that the women who got Pills OTC were more likely to continuously use the medication.
**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…
|
# Internet & "Stupidity" - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The internet gives diverse populations of people more equal access to information and society.
The basis of the argument that the internet is “making us stupid” is problematic and ignores large populations of people. First, the idea of “stupidity” versus intelligence relies heavily upon IQ and other standardized tests, which are racist, classist, and sexist.
Additionally, somewhere between 21 and 42 million Americans do not have reliable broadband access to the internet at home, or between 6% and 13%. And 49% of the US population (162 million people) is not using the internet at broadband speeds. Thus we have to question who the “us” includes when we ask if the internet is “making us stupid.”
For those who do have access, the internet is an impressive tool. Kristin Jenkins, PhD, Executive Director of BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, explained, “Access to information is enormously powerful, and the internet has provided access to people in a way we have never before experienced… Information that was once accessed through print materials that were not available to everyone and often out of date is now much more readily available to many more people.”
Social media in particular offers an accessible mode of communication for many people with disabilities. Deaf and hearing-impaired people don’t have to worry if a hearing person knows sign language or will be patient enough to repeat themselves for clarification. The internet also offers spaces where people with similar disabilities can congregate to socialize, offer support, or share information, all without leaving home, an additional benefit for those for whom leaving home is difficult or impossible.
Older adults use the internet to carry out a number of everyday tasks, which is especially valuable if they don’t have local family, friends, or social services to help. Older adults who use the internet were also more likely to be tied to other people socially via hobby, support, or other groups.
**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 Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.
94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests.
**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…
|
# Homework Pros and Cons - Should Homework Be Banned?'
**Argument**
Homework improves student achievement.
Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college.
Research published in the High School Journal indicated that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.”
Students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework on both and grades. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take-home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement.
Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school.
**Background**
From dioramas to book reports, from algebraic word problems to research projects, whether students should be given homework, as well as the type and amount of homework, has been debated for over a century. [1]
While we are unsure who invented homework, we do know that the word “homework” dates back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger asked his followers to practice their speeches at home. Memorization exercises as homework continued through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment by monks and other scholars. [45]
In the 19th century, German students of the Volksschulen or “People’s Schools” were given assignments to complete outside of the school day. This concept of homework quickly spread across Europe and was brought to the United States by Horace Mann, who encountered the idea in Prussia. [45]
In the early 1900s, progressive education theorists, championed by the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal, decried homework’s negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, leading California to ban homework for students under 15 from 1901 until 1917. In the 1930s, homework was portrayed as child labor, which was newly illegal, but the prevailing argument was that kids needed time to do household chores. [1] [2] [45] [46]
Public opinion swayed again in favor of homework in the 1950s due to concerns about keeping up with the Soviet Union’s technological advances during the Cold War. And, in 1986, the US government included homework as an educational quality boosting tool. [3] [45]
A 2014 study found kindergarteners to fifth graders averaged 2.9 hours of homework per week, sixth to eighth graders 3.2 hours per teacher, and ninth to twelfth graders 3.5 hours per teacher. A 2014-2019 study found that teens spent about an hour a day on homework. [4] [44]
Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the very idea of homework as students were schooling remotely and many were doing all school work from home. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss asked, “Does homework work when kids are learning all day at home?” While students were mostly back in school buildings in fall 2021, the question remains of how effective homework is as an educational tool. [47]
|
# Should People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
A diet that includes fish provides the body with essential omega-3 fatty acids.
Fish are a powerful source of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA which are important for brain function, lowering triglycerides, and reducing the risk of death from heart attacks and strokes.
Although the omega-3 fatty acid ALA can be found in plant oils, the ALA must first be converted by the body into the essential EPA and DHA. The process is inefficient and may not provide the same cardiovascular benefits as eating fish.
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure is a good system that has become a scapegoat for problems facing education.
Eliminating tenure will not reduce class sizes or make schools cleaner and safer. If tenure is abolished, problems of underfunding, overcrowding, and lack of control over students’ home lives will persist.
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Ocean acidity levels are increasing at an unprecedented rate that can only be explained by human activity.
As excess human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, the acidity level of the water increases. Acidity levels in the oceans are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) said oceans have absorbed about 30% of the CO2 emitted by humans over the past 200 years, and ocean acidity could rise approximately 100-200 percent above preindustrial levels by 2100.
The World Meteorological Organization said the current acceleration in the rate of ocean acidification “appears unprecedented” over the last 300 million years. High ocean acidity levels threaten marine species, and slows the growth of coral reefs. The Convention on Biological Diversity said “it is now nearly inevitable” that within 50-100 years continued human-produced CO2 emissions will increase ocean acidity to levels that harm marine organisms and ecosystems.
**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…
|
# Hockey Fighting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Fighting draws fans and increases the game's entertainment value.
A majority of hockey fans oppose a fighting ban and think the on-ice scuffles are a significant part of the game at the pro level, according to a poll in the Toronto Star newspaper. Travis Hughes, SB Nation hockey writer, said, “Fighting exists in hockey because we enjoy watching people fight.”
Hockey fight clips get shown on ESPN’s SportsCenter and have millions of views on YouTube. Brawls increase attendance: an economic study of hockey found that “violence, specifically fighting, tends to attract fans in large numbers across the United States and Canada.” Fights help the NHL stand out from other sports because no other team sports sanction brawling.
SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross wrote, “Fights can add entertainment value, change a game and have fans talking for days.”
Rich Clune, a Maple Leafs forward and long-time fighter, said, “I think the NHL is cognizant of the fact that they can’t eliminate it and turn it into a non-contact sport because I don’t think it’ll sell… especially in America where the game is still growing.”
**Background**
“I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out,” the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield once joked. [1]
In the 2016-2017 National Hockey League (NHL) season, there were 372 fights out of 1,230 games – an average of 0.3 fights per game. [2] Fighting in hockey has been banned nearly everywhere outside of the NHL, including youth games, college play, and the Winter Olympics. [3][4]
Fighting has been part of NHL hockey since the league’s formation in 1917 and its 1922 rule about what was then called “fisticuffs” (that’s an old-fashioned word for fighting). [5][6] The current NHL rulebook addresses fighting in Rule 46, which defines a fight as at least one player punching or taking a swing at another player repeatedly, or players wrestling in a way that is difficult to break up. Players who fight are sent to the penalty box during the game, and may be subject to additional fines or suspensions. [6][7]
In the early 1960s, there was a fight in about 20% of NHL games. That percentage increased to 100% by the 1980s, when there was an average of one fight every game. [8] In 1992, the NHL introduced an instigator rule adding an extra two minutes in the penalty box for anyone caught starting a fight. [9]
Fighting has since decreased: a fight broke out in 29-40% of NHL games from the 2000/2001 season to the 2013/2014 season. Games with fights have steadily decreased since, from 27% of games in the 2014/2015 season to 17% in the 2018/2019 season. [2]
Should Fighting Be Allowed in Hockey?
Pro 1
Allowing fighting makes the sport safer overall by holding players accountable.
Professional hockey is a fast-moving sport, and referees often miss illegal body checking, hits with hockey sticks, and other aggressive plays. Retaliation by fighting brings accountability and prevents more of those dangerous plays from happening. [10]
Hockey players don’t fight just for the sake of violence; combat within the context of the game serves as a deterrent to hurting star players because the aggressors know there will be pay back.
Steven Stamkos, a forward for the Tampa Bay Lightning, said, “You have to police yourselves sometimes on the ice… When you see a fight now it’s a response, someone didn’t like something that was done on the ice. I think you need that. It’s healthy.” [11]
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated that fighting may prevent other injuries in a fast-moving, emotional, and intensely physical game. [12] Former professional player Brandon Prust agreed, stating, “If they take fighting out… I guarantee more people will get hurt from an increase in open-ice body checks.” [13]
Read More
Pro 2
Fighting draws fans and increases the game's entertainment value.
A majority of hockey fans oppose a fighting ban and think the on-ice scuffles are a significant part of the game at the pro level, according to a poll in the Toronto Star newspaper. [19] Travis Hughes, SB Nation hockey writer, said, “Fighting exists in hockey because we enjoy watching people fight.” [20]
Hockey fight clips get shown on ESPN’s SportsCenter and have millions of views on YouTube. [21] Brawls increase attendance: an economic study of hockey found that “violence, specifically fighting, tends to attract fans in large numbers across the United States and Canada.” [22] Fights help the NHL stand out from other sports because no other team sports sanction brawling.
SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross wrote, “Fights can add entertainment value, change a game and have fans talking for days.” [23]
Rich Clune, a Maple Leafs forward and long-time fighter, said, “I think the NHL is cognizant of the fact that they can’t eliminate it and turn it into a non-contact sport because I don’t think it’ll sell… especially in America where the game is still growing.” [24]
Read More
Pro 3
Fighting is a hockey tradition that exists in the official rules and as an unwritten code among players.
98% of NHL players surveyed in 2012 said they do not want to ban fighting in hockey. [30] Fighting is an essential part of the professional game, and it is governed by the NHL rulebook. [7]
Ross Bernstein, the author of the book The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL, stated that “hockey is, and always has been, a sport steeped in a culture of violence. Players have learned, however, to navigate through its mazes and labyrinths of physical contact by adhering to an honor code of conduct.” [10]
The code dictates who can fight and for what reasons, and has reportedly existed for over 100 years. [10] The fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code. [29]
Read More
Con 1
Fighting in hockey leads to concussions, mental health problems, and death.
Charles H. Tator, PhD, MD, neurosurgeon, believes fighting causes 10% of all concussions in hockey. [14]
NHL officials expressed in private emails their views that fighting can lead to concussions, long-term health problems, and heavy use of pain medication. Bill Daly, NHL Deputy Commissioner, wrote, “Fighting raises the incidence of head injuries/concussions, which raises the incidence of depression onset, which raises the incidence of personal tragedies.” [15]
Former NHL player Derek Boogaard filled an unofficial role known as an enforcer, which is a player whose purpose is to fight as a means of responding to dirty plays by the opposing team. [16] After he died at age 28 in 2011, doctors examined Boogaard’s brain and determined that he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is believed to be caused by repeated head injuries. [17]
Two other enforcers died within four months of each that same year, raising concerns about the physical, as well as mental and emotional, toll that fighting takes on players. [18]
Read More
Con 2
Fighting at the professional level sets a bad example for kids.
Even though fighting in youth leagues is banned, young hockey players constantly imitate the tactics used by professionals, both legal and illegal. [25]
The damaging physical effects of fighting are even more significant for young players, since their brains are not fully developed. For younger players, concussions can cause permanent learning and cognitive disabilities, many of which may not be recognized until they grow up. [26]
Young hockey players are already susceptible to catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury, at nearly four times the rate of young football players. [27]
Michael Cusimano, MD, neurosurgeon, said, “Whatever is done at a professional level in sports is emulated almost immediately by children who idolize their heroes. NHL players also have to be aware of this and set a better example for our kids.” [28]
Most of what players are trying to accomplish through fighting can be done by having the referees call more penalties during the game, which sends a better message to kids about conflict resolution. [29]
Read More
Con 3
Fighting in hockey glorifies violence.
Matthew Sekeres, writer at Globe and Mail, said that “Hockey is a sport that solves its problems with violence.” [32]
Allowing hockey players to fight creates a culture in which fighting is respected and valued, according to a study in the journal Men and Masculinities, which stated, “The findings of this study indicate that interpersonal aggression is common in the lives of these hockey players, both on and off the ice.” [31]
When the use of violence is approved and legitimized among hockey players, they are more likely to participate in other forms of violence.
For instance, a study found that people seeking a career in professional hockey are more likely to commit sexual assault and have abusive relationships than non-hockey players and people who play hockey as a hobby. [33][37][38]
Researchers have found that hockey violence makes fans more hostile in the stands and off the rink. [34][35][36]
Read More
Click for an Encyclopaedia Britannica video about hockey.
Discussion Questions
1.Should fighting be allowed in hockey? Explain your answer.
2. Should fighting be allowed in any sport? Which sports? Why or why not?
3. How should inter-player conflicts be resolved in hockey and other sports? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Consider this NBC Sports article with explanations from hockey players about why they fight.
2. Evaluate the NHL’s rules on “fisticuffs.”
3. Examine ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski’s argument that fighting in hockey is at a low and should stay that way.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Sports Illustrated, “Wit and Wisdom of Hockey,” si.com, Oct. 1, 2013
2.David M. Singer, “NHL Fight Stats,” hockeyfights.com (accessed Mar. 9, 2021)
3.Jeff Z. Klein, “No Fights. No Checking. Can This Be Hockey?,” nytimes.com, Mar. 5, 2011
4.Mike Brophy, “Fighting in NHL Is Down Naturally, but Now Is the Time to Ban It Outright,” thehockeynews.com, Nov. 14, 2015
5.Jeff Z. Klein, “Hockey’s History, Woven with Violence,” nytimes.com, Dec. 10, 2011
6.Graham Flanagan, “This Is Why Fighting Is Allowed in Pro Hockey — and Why the NHL Has No Plans to Ban It,” businessinsider.com, Feb. 18, 2017
7.National Hockey League, “Official Rules,” nhl.com, 2017
8.Gregory DeAngelo, Brad R. Humphreys, and Imke Reimers, “Community and Specialized Enforcement: Complements or Substitutes?,” ssrn.com, Mar. 23, 2016
9.Adam Greuel, “Is the NHL Instigator Rule Really Necessary?,” bleacherreport.com, July 23, 2008
10.John Buccigross, “The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL,” espn.com, Jan. 8, 2007
11.Chris Kuc, “Why Is Fighting Vanishing from the NHL?,” chicagotribune.com, Feb. 6, 2016
12.Sports Illustrated, “Commissioner Gary Bettman Fights to Keep Fighting in NHL,” si.com, June 27, 2016
13.Brandon Prust, “Why We Fight,” theplayerstribune.com, Feb. 3, 2015
14.Jeff Z. Klein, “In Debate about Fighting in Hockey, Medical Experts Weigh In,” nytimes.com, Dec. 12, 2011
15.John Branch, “In Emails, N.H.L. Officials Conceded Concussion Risks of Fights,” nytimes.com, Mar. 28, 2016
16.Sporting Charts, “Enforcer,” sportingcharts.com (accessed Feb. 27, 2018)
17.John Branch, “Derek Boogaard: A Brain ‘Going Bad,'” nytimes.com, Dec. 5, 2011
18.Tom Cohen, “Three Hockey Enforcers Die Young in Four Months, Raising Questions,” cnn.com, Sep. 2, 2011
19.Chris Zelkovich, “Hockey Fans Love Fighting, Survey Says,” thestar.com, Mar. 17, 2009
20.Travis Hughes, “Why Do Hockey Players Fight?,” sbnation.com, Oct. 14, 2011
21.Sean McIndoe, “The Seven Levels of Dirty Hockey,” grantland.com, Feb. 19, 2013
22.Rodney J. Paul, “Variations in NHL Attendance: The Impact of Violence, Scoring, and Regional Rivalries,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2003
23.John Buccigross, “Here’s Why Fighting Is Making a Small Comeback in the NHL,” espn.com, Oct. 21, 2008
24.Jonas Siegel, “NHL Fight Numbers Continue to Decline,” cbc.ca, Apr. 6, 2016
25.Glenn Keays and B. Pless, “Influence of Viewing Professional Ice Hockey on Youth Hockey Injuries,” Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, Mar. 2013
26.Nicola Davis, “Childhood Concussion Linked to Lifelong Health and Social Problems,” theguardian.com, Aug. 23, 2016
27.Anthony Marchie and Michael D. Cusimano, “Bodychecking and Concussions in Ice Hockey: Should Our Youth Pay the Price?,” CMAJ, July 2003
28.Michael Cusimano, “Why We Need to Fix Fighting in Hockey and the NHL: Our Kids,” theglobeandmail.com, Mar. 25, 2017
29.Nadav Goldschmied and Samantha Espindola, “‘I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?,” Sports Health, Sep. 2013
30.Greg Wyshynski, “Once again, NHL Players Voice Overwhelming Opposition to Fighting Ban,” yahoo.com, Feb. 20, 2012
31.Nick T. Pappas, Patrick C. McKenry, and Beth Skilken Catlett, “Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off the Ice: Athlete Violence and Aggression in Hockey and Interpersonal Relationships,” Men and Masculinities, Jan. 2004
32.Matthew Sekeres, “Hockey Can Bring out the Violence in Peaceful Canadians,” theglobeandmail.com, June 17, 2011
33.Gorden A. Bloom and Michael D. Smith, “Hockey Violence: A Test of Cultural Spillover Theory,” Sociology of Sport Journal, Mar. 1996
34.W. Andrew Harrell, “Verbal Aggressiveness in Spectators at Professional Hockey Games: The Effects of Tolerance of Violence and Amount of Exposure to Hockey,” Human Relations, Aug. 1981
35.Leonard Berkowitz and Joseph T. Alioto, “The Meaning of an Observed Event as a Determinant of Its Aggressive Consequences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nov. 1973
36.Elaine Cassel and Douglas A. Bernstein, Criminal Behavior, 2013
37.Shady Elien, “Link between Hockey and Rape Studied,” straight.com, May 12, 2010
38.Michael Kasdan, “Hockey, Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse: Time for Change,” goodmenproject.com, Oct. 7, 2016
More Sports Debate Topics
Should Colleges and Universities Pay College Athletes? – Proponents say colleges profit unfairly off of the athletes. Opponents say the athletes are paid in tuition.
Should Performance-Enhancing Drugs Be Accepted in Sports? – The debate about doping in sports explores criminalization, types of drugs, and the olympics.
Are the Olympic Games an Overall Benefit for Their Host Countries and Cities? – Proponents say hosting the Olympics boosts local economies. Opponents say the games are a financial drain on host cities.
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Should the Penny Stay in Circulation? - Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
The process of making pennies is costly both financially and environmentally.
At a total per unit cost of 1.82 cents, it costs nearly two pennies to make one penny. Aaron Klein, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department, estimates that the United States could see $1.78 billion in losses over the next 30 years if the penny remains in production.
Making pennies also has environmental consequences from mining and transportation. Mining zinc and copper produces carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants, and uses vast amounts of energy.
Over the last 35 years, 107 million pounds of carbon dioxide have been emitted due to pennies being delivered from the Mint to banks. A California company called Mike’s Bikes has banned the penny from its registers because “Making pennies wastes natural resources [and] is toxic to people and the environment.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The US Mint shipped 8.4 billion pennies for circulation in 2017, more than all nickels (1.3 billion), dimes (2.4 billion), and quarters (1.9 billion) combined. [1] While countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have phased out their one-cent pieces, Harris Poll found that 55% of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny and 29% want to abolish it. [2][3]
The US Mint produces coins as instructed by Congress, so a law would have to be passed by Congress and signed by the President in order for pennies to be removed from circulation. [4] Several unsuccessful legislative efforts have sought to bring about the penny’s extinction. Most recently, in 2017, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) sponsored ultimately failed legislation that would have suspended minting of the penny. [5]
Should the Penny Stay in Circulation?
Pro 1
Preserving the penny keeps consumer prices down and avoids harming low-income households.
Mark Weller, Executive Director of the pro-penny group Americans for Common Cents, says, “The alternative to the penny is rounding to the nickel, and that’s something that will negatively impact working families every time they buy a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk.” [6]
The US Federal Reserve found that minorities and low-income people are more likely to use cash than credit cards. [7] Raymond Lombra, Professor of Economics at Pennsylvania State University, says the extra rounding charges would exceed $600 million annually and would “be regressive, affecting the poor and other disadvantaged people groups disproportionately.” [9]
One study found that penny rounding in Canada costs grocery store customers an estimated 3.27 million Canadian dollars (2.5 million USD) annually. [9]
Read More
Pro 2
A penny can be used for decades and is more cost-efficient to produce than a nickel.
Most US coins have an expected circulation life of 20 to 30 years, meaning a single penny could be used thousands or even millions of times. [10][11] So what if it costs 1.8 cents to make? [1] That’s a bargain for how many times it gets used.
Without pennies, the Mint would be forced to make more five-cent pieces. That would cost an estimated $10.9 million more annually than it would cost to keep making pennies. [12]
Pennies and nickels both cost more to make than their face values, but on average over the last five years, nickels have been made at a loss of 2.58 cents per coin, compared to .65 cents per penny. [1][13] The cost of making and shipping pennies includes some fixed costs that the US Mint would continue to incur even if we abolished the penny, because the Mint would still make other coins. [12]
Read More
Pro 3
The existence of pennies helps raise a lot of money for charities.
Organizations such as the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Salvation Army, and the Ronald McDonald House ask people to donate pennies to raise funds. [11] In 2009, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society announced that school children had collected over 15 billion pennies in support of its charitable work — that’s $150 million dollars for blood cancer research and treatment. [14]
Dagmar Serota, who created a nonprofit called Good Cents for Oakland, said, “Pennies are easy to ask for and they are easy to give. And it’s very easy for a child to say, ‘Will you help me support this nonprofit, will you give me your pennies?’” [6] Elementary school students in Los Angeles, CA, gain significant leadership and civic engagement experience from USC’s Penny Harvest program by choosing how to donate the money they raise. [15]
Common Cents, a nonprofit based in Dallas, TX, has run a “Pennies from the Heart” program for 20 years, and the student-led efforts have raised over $850,000 for local charities. [16] The Ms. Cheap Penny Drive for Second Harvest in Tennessee raised enough to pay for 316,039 meals for the hungry in 2017. [17]
Read More
Con 1
The penny has practically no value and should be taken out of circulation just as other coins have been in US history.
You can’t buy anything for a penny; vending machines and parking meters won’t accept them. [18] Harvard economist Greg Mankiw stated, “The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange. The penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.” [19] Former US Mint Director Philip Diehl said, “[T]he value of a penny has shrunk to the point that, if you earn more than the minimum wage, you’re losing money stopping and picking up a penny on the sidewalk.” [20]
Comedian John Oliver noted, “Two percent of Americans admitted to regularly throwing pennies in the garbage, which means the US Mint is spending millions to make garbage.” [21] Two-thirds of the billions of pennies produced are never seen in circulation again once they reach a consumer via the bank. [22]
Read More
Con 2
The process of making pennies is costly both financially and environmentally.
At a total per unit cost of 1.82 cents, it costs nearly two pennies to make one penny. [1] Aaron Klein, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department, estimates that the United States could see $1.78 billion in losses over the next 30 years if the penny remains in production. [23]
Making pennies also has environmental consequences from mining and transportation. Mining zinc and copper produces carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants, and uses vast amounts of energy. [24]
Over the last 35 years, 107 million pounds of carbon dioxide have been emitted due to pennies being delivered from the Mint to banks. [25] A California company called Mike’s Bikes has banned the penny from its registers because “Making pennies wastes natural resources [and] is toxic to people and the environment.” [26]
Read More
Con 3
Eliminating pennies would save time at the point of purchase without hurting customers or businesses financially.
The use of pennies in paying for goods and making change adds time to sales transactions. A study by Walgreen’s and the National Association of Convenience Stores found that pennies add 2 to 2.5 seconds to each cash transaction. [27]
As a result of that extra time per transaction, the average citizen wastes 730 seconds a year (12 minutes) paying with pennies. [28] Harvard economist Greg Mankiw says that this wasted time costs the US economy around $1 billion annually. [29] An estimate from Citizens to Retire the penny says that the 107 billion cash transactions in the United States annually add up to 120 million hours of time between customers and employees – at a cost of $2 billion to the US economy. [27]
Rounding transactions to the nearest nickel instead of using pennies wouldn’t harm consumers or stores. Robert M. Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, crunched the numbers and found that “The convenience stores and the customers basically broke even.” [30]
Read More
Did You Know?
1. In 1792, Congress created a national mint authorized to make gold, silver, and copper coins, including the one-cent piece known as the penny. Abraham Lincoln’s face replaced an image of Lady Liberty on the penny in 1909, the 100th anniversary of his birth, making him the first real person featured on a regular-issue American coin. [31][32][33]
2. The first penny, known as the “Fugio cent,” was reportedly designed by Benjamin Franklin in 1787. Franklin is also credited with the saying, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” [35]
3. The official name for the US penny is “one-cent piece,” according to the US Department of the Treasury, but early Americans were allegedly in the habit of using the British term “penny.” [4][35]
4. Although originally made of pure copper, pennies today are composed of 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper. [34]
5. The Department of Defense banned the use of pennies at overseas military bases in 1980 because the coins were deemed too heavy and not cost effective to ship. [36]
6. The difference between the face value of a coin and and the actual cost to make it is known as seigniorage. [37]
7. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to favor dropping the penny (39% vs. 20%). [3]
For more on US currency, explore “Currency and the US Presidents.”
Click for an Encyclopaedia Britannica video about how coins became a form of money.
Discussion Questions
1. Should the penny stay in circulation? Why or why not?
2. Should the US government consider removing other coins from circulation as transactions become more digital? Why or why not?
3. How would removing pennies impact people who primarily rely on cash transactions? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Analyze the pro argument of Mark Weller from Americans for Common Cents.
2. Explore the penny at the US Mint.
3. Consider the con arguments from NPR’s Planet Money reporter Greg Rosalsky.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.United States Mint, "United States Mint 2020 Annual Report," usmint.gov, 2021
2.Brian Milligan, "The Penny Coin: Should We Follow Ireland and Phase It Out?," bbc.com, May 8, 2016
3.The Harris Poll, "Penny for Your Thoughts? Americans Oppose Abolishing the Penny," theharrispoll.com, Sep. 22, 2015
4.US Department of the Treasury, "Resource Center: Denominations," treasury.gov, June 15, 2018
5.John McCain, "Senators John Mccain & Mike Enzi Reintroduce the Coins Act to Save Billions in Taxpayer Dollars," mccain.senate.gov, Mar. 29, 2017
6.Andrew Stelzer, "Phasing out Pennies in a Bid for Change," npr.org, Nov. 29, 2009
7.Shaun O'Brien, "Consumer Preferences and the Use of Cash: Evidence from the Diary of Consumer Payments Choice Working Paper," frbsf.org, June 2014
8.Raymond E. Lombra, "Eliminating the Penny from the U.S. Coinage System: An Economic Analysis," Eastern Economic Journal, Fall 2001
9.Vancouver School of Economics, "Penny Rounding Profitable for Canadian Grocers: UBC VSE Student Research," economics.ubc.ca, Nov. 16, 2017
10.Reuters, "Pennies: The Throwaway Coins We Can't Let Go Of," latimes.com, May 31, 1994
11.Amy Livingston, "Should We Get Rid of the Penny? – 8 Reasons to Keep It vs Eliminate It," moneycrashers.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
12.Rodney J. Bosco and Kevin M. Davis, "Impact of Eliminating the Penny on the United States Mint's Costs and Profit in Fiscal Year 2011," pennies.org, Apr. 12, 2012
13.United States Mint, "United States Mint 2015 Annual Report," usmint.gov, June 2016
14.Associated Press, "US Penny Campaign Benefits Blood Cancer Research," newsday.com, Feb. 10, 2009
15.University of Southern California, "The USC Penny Harvest Wrapped up Its Third Successful Year," communities.usc.edu (accessed July 2, 2018)
16.Common Cents, "Non-Profits," commoncentsdallas.org (accessed July 2, 2018)
17.Mary Hance, "Penny Drive Sets Record in Raising Money for Second Harvest," tennessean.com, Feb. 17, 2017
18.Vlogbrothers, "I HATE PENNIES!!!! (Also Nickels.)," YouTube.com, Sep. 6, 2010
19.Greg Mankiw, "Get Rid of the Penny!," gregmankiw.blogspot.com, Apr. 22, 2006
20.Philip N. Diehl, "The Real Diehl: It’s Time for the United States to Eliminate the One Cent Coin," coinweek.com, Jan. 28, 2015
21.Last Week Tonight, "Pennies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)," YouTube.com, Nov. 22, 2015
22.J. William Gadsby, "Future of the Penny: Options for Congressional Consideration," gao.gov, July 16, 1996
23.Aaron Klein, "Time for Change: Modernizing to the Dollar Coin Saves Taxpayers Billions," dollarcoinalliance.org, July 22, 2013
24.Michelle Z. Donahue, "How Much Does it Really Cost (the Planet) to Make a Penny?," smithsonianmag.com, May 18, 2016
25.Josh Bloom, "Want to Help the Environment? Get Rid of Stupid Pennies," acsh.org, June 17, 2016
26.Mike's Bikes, "Pennies Don't Make 'Cents,'" mikesbikes.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
27.Retire the Penny, "It Makes 'Cents,'" retirethepenny.org (accessed July 2, 2018)
28.Sebastian Mallaby, "The Penny Stops Here," washingtonpost.com, Sep. 25, 2006
29.Greg Mankiw, "How to Make $1 Billion," gregmankiw.blogspot.com, Sep. 25, 2006
30.Consumer Affairs, "The Penny's End Is Near," consumeraffairs.com, July 2006
31.Courtney Waite, "The Origination of the Lincoln Penny," livinglincoln.web.unc.edu, Apr. 16, 2015
32.United States Mint, "Fun Facts Related to the Penny," usmint.gov (accessed July 2, 2018)
33.APMEX, "The 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent – the King of Lincoln Cents," apmex.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
34.United States Mint, "History," usmint.gov, June 19, 2018
35.Jennie Cohen, "10 Things You Didn't Know about the Penny," history.com, Mar. 30, 2012
36.Army & Air Force Exchange Service, "Retail & General FAQs," aafes.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
37.David Kestenbaum, "What Is Seigniorage?," npr.org, Jan. 9, 2009
38.Business Wire, "Strong Support for the Penny in Recent Poll," businesswire.com, Apr. 25, 2019
39.Jenny Gross, "Will the Penny Survive Coronavirus? Some Hope Not," nytimes.com, July 29, 2020
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Should People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
Eating fish is not more ethical, environmentally sound, or healthful than eating other animal protein sources.
The US EPA states that “nearly all fish and shellfish” are contaminated by methylmercury (a potent neurotoxin) from industrial pollution. The omega-3 acid ALA found in vegetarian sources like walnut, flax, and olive oils, is converted by the body into EPA and DHA—the essential omega-3 acids found in fish—and sufficient to meet the dietary needs of humans.
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure helps guarantee innovation in teaching.
Without the protection of tenure, teachers may feel pressured to use the same lesson plans and teach directly to standardized tests. Former California Teachers Association President Barbara Kerr said, “Teachers are afraid to try new, innovative things if they are afraid of losing their job.”
**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…
|
# Saturday Halloween - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Moving Halloween to Saturday would put kids on the streets on the most dangerous night of the week.
Halloween is already a dangerous holiday, with about 43% more pedestrians dying on the holiday than other autumn nights. Moving the holiday to Saturdays, the most dangerous day of the week, could further increase injuries and deaths because people would start drinking alcohol earlier in the day, and consume more overall than they would on a weeknight.
Drunk drivers are already involved in more than 25% of pedestrian deaths on Halloween. Ensuring that Halloween always occurs on a weekend night would lead to more binge drinking and drunk driving, making pedestrians less safe.
Drivers ages 15 to 25 are responsible for nearly a third of all child pedestrian fatal accidents on Halloween. Moving the holiday to the weekend every year would likely increase the fatalities because of later curfews and a lack of school and other responsibilities the following day.
Saturdays have the most fatal car crashes of any day, with a total of 5,873 during 2017 (over 500 more than the second-highest crash day). In 2017, there were an additional 799,000 nonfatal traffic accidents on Saturdays. 53% more road deaths occur on Saturdays than on Tuesdays, the safest day of the week.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Halloween takes place on Oct. 31 regardless of the day of the week. In 2021, Halloween is on a Sunday. In 2020, Halloween fell on a Saturday, though the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic led many jurisdictions to adapt or cancel traditional activities. [33]
According to tradition, children in the United States dress up in costumes and go door-to-door in their neighborhoods saying “trick or treat” to receive candy.
Some would like to see Halloween held on a Saturday every year for safety reasons, and petitioned President Trump via change.org. However, others point out that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to make that change because Halloween isn’t a federal holiday. [1] [2] [3]
About 172 million Americans celebrated Halloween in 2019. The top costumes for kids were princess, superhero, Batman, a Star Wars character, and a witch. Almost 17% of Americans buy costumes for their pets, with the top choices being pumpkins, hot dogs, and bumblebees. Americans spent an estimated $8.8 billion, or $86.27 per person, in 2019 on Halloween goods such as candy to hand out, decorations, costumes, and pumpkins. [34]
Fewer Americans celebrated Halloween in 2020 (148 million), likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures, however those who did celebrate spent more individually on their festivities at $92.12 per person, or about $8.0 billion total. Top kids’ costumes were princess, Spiderman, superhero, ghost, and Batman. [35]
In 2021, experts expect consumers to spend a record $10.14 billion as more people plan to hand out candy or attend parties than in 2020. [36]
|
# Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
The concept of “traditional marriage” has changed over time, and the idea that the definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate.
Harvard University historian Nancy F. Cott stated that until two centuries ago, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world’s population, and were found only in “Western Europe and little settlements in North America.”
Official unions between same-sex couples, indistinguishable from marriages except for gender, are believed by some scholars to have been common until the 13th Century in many countries, with the ceremonies performed in churches and the union sealed with a kiss between the two parties.
Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD.
**Background**
This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future.
On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.
Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.
Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Teacher tenure is a justifiable reward for several years of positive evaluations by school administrators.
Administrators are responsible for evaluating teachers before granting tenure and helping to develop struggling teachers. The existence of inadequate teachers should be blamed on the poor judgment of administrators, not teacher tenure. According to a Dec. 2017 report by the National Council on Teacher Quality, only four states have developed a tenure-granting process where teacher effectiveness is “the determinative factor in tenure decisions.”
**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 Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animal testing is crucial to ensure that vaccines are safe.
Scientists racing to develop a vaccine for coronavirus during the 2020 global pandemic need to test on genetically modified mice to ensure that the vaccine doesn’t make the virus worse. Nikolai Petrovsky, professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Australia, said testing a coronavirus vaccine on animals is “absolutely essential” and skipping that step would be “fraught with difficulty and danger.”
Researchers have to test extensively to prevent “vaccine enhancement,” a situation in which a vaccine actually makes the disease worse in some people. Peter Hotez, Dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College, said, “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals.”
**Background**
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background…
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Making birth control pills OTC could lower the abortion rate.
In a survey of women seeking abortions, 72% said they were pregnant because they could not get the contraception they needed, and 32% reported an institutional reason such as the prescription requirement. These obstacles resulted in a 35% increase in contraceptives not being used.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated: “The most effective way to reduce abortion rates is to prevent unintended pregnancy by improving access to consistent, effective, and affordable contraception… [and a] strategy for improving access to contraception is to allow over-the-counter access to oral contraceptive pills.” The Guttmacher Institute stated that “more and better contraceptive use” caused the 13% decline in abortion rates between 2008 and 2011.
**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 Voting Age be Lowered in the US? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
The vast majority of Americans of all ages and political views agree that 16-year-olds should not be given the right to vote.
A 2019 Hill-HarrisX poll found that 84% of registered voters opposed lowering the voting age to 16. The poll found every age group was against 16-year-olds voting, with the most support found among those under 35 where still only 39% were in favor.
A different survey found 8% support for lowering the voting age to 16; 45% want to keep it at 18; and 46% would like to raise it back to age 21.
A Twitter poll by WJLA, the ABC news affiliate in Washington, DC, found just 18% support for a proposed bill to lower the voting age to 16 in the District of Columbia, compared to 77% against. The local NBC news affiliate ran a similar poll online in which 83% of participants were against the bill.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
From the 1990s to the present, elected officials in several US states have made unsuccessful attempts to lower the voting age to 16, and sometimes even younger. [1] Student activism in the wake of the Feb. 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, brought new life to the debate about letting younger people vote in elections. [2]
Internationally, about a dozen countries allow citizens to vote at age 16, sometimes with conditions such as being employed or married, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. [48]
A constitutional amendment to lower the US voting age to 16 would require approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states). [3] Alternatively, state legislatures could pass laws allowing younger people to vote in their states. [4]
Until the 1970s, the voting age in America was 21. [43] A debate over lowering it to 18 began during World War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreased the military draft age to 18. [44] President Eisenhower called for citizens ages 18 to 21 to be included in the political process in his 1954 State of the Union address. [44] But lawmakers didn’t take action until marches and demonstrations drew attention to the fact that young people who were being drafted to fight in Vietnam did not have the ability to vote in most states. [43]
Congress proposed the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1971, which stated, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” [45] The ratification process, which required approval from 38 states, was completed in about three months, the shortest amount of time of any amendment in US history. [46]
|
# Dakota Access Pipeline Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Dakota Access Pipeline will worsen climate change by pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of shale oil to market daily.
If completed, the DAPL would carry 470,000 – 570,000 barrels of Bakken shale oil to market. The extracted oil, once processed, transported, and burned, would release 101.4 million metric tons of CO2 each year. This is the equivalent of the emissions from 29.5 coal plants or 21.4 million cars per year. A peer-reviewed study found that a global rise in atmospheric ethane, a greenhouse gas, can be traced largely to hydraulic fracking in the North Dakota Bakken shale oil fields. According to US Senator Bernie Sanders, “if we have any hope of avoiding the worst consequences of , we should not be building new oil pipelines that lock us into burning fossil fuels for generations to come.”
**Background**
The Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile-long pipeline to transport shale oil from the North Dakota Bakken oil fields to Patoka, Illinois, to link with other pipelines. Construction was completed in Apr. 2017 and the pipeline went into service in June 2017. [1] [3] [37]
In Apr. 2016 members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe created the Sacred Stone Camp near where the pipeline was slated to cross under the Missouri River to protest impending construction of the DAPL because of concerns about environmental impact, possible water contamination, and destruction of sacred burial grounds. Since then conflicts between demonstrators and law enforcement resulted in injuries and hundreds of arrests.
Native American tribal leaders and activists wanted President Obama to halt the DAPL, while North Dakota’s governor and two of its congressmen called on the president to approve the pipeline and end protests. [24] [25] President Obama indicated before the Nov. 8, 2016 election that alternate routes might be considered and said he would let the situation “play out for several more weeks.” [26]
In July 2016 the US Army Corps of Engineers granted the final permits for pipeline construction to Dakota Access, the subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners building the pipeline. In response the Standing Rock Sioux filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging multiple violations of federal law during the permitting process. [12] However, construction of the pipeline began as scheduled, so the tribe filed a request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction until their court case was decided. On Aug. 10, 2016, a coalition of Native American tribes and other activists began a blockade of the pipeline to prevent continued construction. [3]
As news spread of the blockade, hundreds of people began arriving at the original Sacred Stone Camp. A larger camp, known as the Oceti Sakowin Camp, was formed to house thousands of new supporters. Representatives from 300 Native American tribes, along with other allies, have joined the Standing Rock Sioux to demand the pipeline construction be halted. [2]
Since the blockade began, a series of escalating confrontations occurred between pipeline opponents, many of whom call themselves “water protectors,” and various private, local, and state law enforcement agents who have been protecting the pipeline and trying to prevent disruption of the construction.
On Sep. 3, 2016, a major escalation occurred when private security working for Dakota Access used dogs and pepper spray on a group of Native Americans and allies who walked onto an active pipeline construction site to disrupt operations. [4]
On Sep. 9, 2016, the Standing Rock Tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction was denied. In response, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, and the Department of the Interior issued a joint statement pausing construction of the pipeline, pending further review, on the federal land bordering the area where the pipeline is to be bored beneath the Missouri River. Although the government requested that Dakota Access voluntarily stop work 20 miles east or west of the Missouri River, the company continued with construction. [11]
Another major confrontation occurred on Oct. 28, 2016, when over 300 police officers in riot gear, accompanied by armored vehicles, moved in to clear an encampment and road barricades that had been set up to prevent construction of a section of the pipeline. [5] [6]
On Nov. 14, 2016, the Army Corps review concluded that permission to construct the pipeline “on or under Corps land” bordering the Missouri River could not occur until further review was undertaken, and encouraged the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s involvement in the process. [1] In response, Dakota Access filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers and continued with construction of the pipeline on lands not under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps. [12]
On Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016, a major clash occurred between law enforcement and 400 people trying to remove a road barricade set up by law enforcement to block traffic on Highway 1806 near the Oceti Sakowin encampment. Nearly 300 people were treated for injuries, some life threatening, and 26 people were taken to area hospitals. [7][8][9] According to the Morton County Sheriff ‘s Department, between when protest activity against the pipeline began and Nov. 14, 2016, at least 473 individuals were arrested. [10]
The pipeline carried oil for over 3 years before being shut down by a federal court order, pending an environmental review, in July 2020. [38]
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Students who are heavy social media users tend to have lower grades.
31% of teens say that using social media during homework reduces the quality of their work. Students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 while non-users had an average GPA of 3.82. Students who used social media while studying scored 20% lower on tests. College students’ grades dropped 0.12 points for every 93 minutes above the average 106 minutes spent on Facebook per day. One study found that in schools which introduced a ban on cell phones, student performance improved 6.41%. Another found that grades began a steady decline after secondary school students reached 30 minutes of daily screen time. After four hours, average GPAs dropped one full grade.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
81% of K-12 teachers believe that “tablets enrich classroom education.”
The survey of technology in the classroom by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) also concluded that 77% of teachers found technology to “increase student motivation to learn.”
**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…
|
# Animal Dissection - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Dissecting a real animal provides students with more learning opportunities.
A 2022 study found 83% of teachers surveyed in Switzerland agreed that “dissection is a valuable part of teaching biology in schools,” while 70% disagreed that “alternatives are just as good as animals or animal parts for teaching biology.”
Dissecting an animal offers education in fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, and handling sharp objects carefully. Hands-on learning keeps students more engaged, which facilitates assimilation of information. The American Psychological Association adds that animal dissection “engenders creativity, original thought, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.”
Using a real animal also helps to instruct students on the ethics of using animals in research. Teachers can explain how the animals were sourced, demonstrate proper treatment of dead animals, and imbue a respect for life among students.
**Background**
Dissecting a frog might be one of the most memorable school experiences for many students, whether they are enthusiastic participants, prefer lab time to lectures, or are conscientious objectors to dissection.
The use of animal dissection in education goes back as far as the 1500s when Belgian doctor Andreas Vesalius used the practice as an instructional method for his medical students. [1]
Animal dissections became part of American K-12 school curricula in the 1920s. About 75-80% of North American students will dissect an animal by the time they graduate high school. An estimated six to 12 million animals are dissected in American schools each year. In at least 21 states and DC, K-12 students have the legal option to request an alternate assignment to animal dissection. [2] [3] [27]
While frogs are the most common animal for K-12 students to dissect, students also encounter fetal pigs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, minks, birds, turtles, snakes, crayfish, perch, starfish, and earthworms, as well as grasshoppers and other insects. Sometimes students dissect parts of animals such as sheep lungs, cows’ eyes, and bull testicles. [2]
Are animal dissections in K-12 schools crucial learning opportunities that encourage science careers and make good use of dead animals? Or are animal dissections unnecessary experiments that promote environmental damage when ethical alternatives exist?
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
The availability and value of gold fluctuates and does not provide the price stability necessary for a healthy economy.
Under a gold standard the supply of money would be dependent on how much gold is produced. Inflation would occur when large gold discoveries were made and deflation would occur during periods of gold scarcity. For example, in 1848, when large gold finds were made in California, the United States suffered a monetary shock as large quantities of gold created inflation. This rise in US prices caused a trade deficit as US exports became over priced in the international marketplace.
Between 1879 and 1933, when the United States was on a full gold standard, the inflation adjusted market price of gold fluctuated from the $700 range (1890s) to the $200 range (1920s). From 1934-1970, when the US was on a partial gold standard, the inflation adjusted price of gold went from $563 to $201. Fluctuations like these are damaging to a gold standard economy, because the value of a dollar is attached to the value of gold. For example, a 10% increase or decrease in the value of gold would eventually result in a 10% rise or fall in the overall price level of goods across the country.
The total world gold supply increases about 1.5% to 2% per year. To maintain a healthy rate of global economic growth, the nominal rate of growth in world trade should be around 6% to 6.5%. If an international gold standard were to be re-introduced this growth rate could not be maintained.
Further, gold mining is estimated to be “economically unsustainable” by 2050, with new gold supplies running out and large-scale gold mining becoming impossible by 2075. At current rates, gold mines in South Africa, one of the largest global gold producers, could be stripped by 2040.
**Background**
Proponents say the gold standard self-regulates to match supply to demand. Opponents say gold does not provide the price stability for a healthy economy.Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standard where the value of the dollar was backed by gold reserves and paper money could be redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United States dollar has had a fiat currency backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government and not backed by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue that gold retains a stable value that reduces the risk of economic crises, limits government power, would reduce the US trade deficit, and could prevent unnecessary wars by limiting defense spending.
Opponents of the gold standard argue that gold is volatile and would destabilize the economy while disallowing government economic and military intervention, and increasing environmental and cultural harms via mining. Read more background…
|
# Should Pit Bulls Be Banned? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Pit bulls and some other dogs are genetically dangerous.
As Daphna Nachminovitch, Senior Vice President of Cruelty Investigations for PETA, explained, “Pit bulls are a breed-specific problem, so it seems reasonable to target them. The public is misled to believe that pit bulls are like any other dog. And they just aren’t. These dogs were bred to bait bulls. They were bred to fight each other to the death. Just because we’re an animal-rights organization doesn’t mean we’re not concerned about public safety.”
Brian C. Anderson, PhD, Editor of City Journal explained, the dogs have been bred with unique qualities that can make them dangerous: “First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed’s unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That’s because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed’s remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs.”
**Background**
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a “blanket term for laws that regulate or ban certain dog breeds in an effort to decrease dog attacks on humans and other animals,” according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The laws are also called pit bull bans and breed-discriminatory laws. [1]
The legislation frequently covers any dog deemed a “pit bull,” which can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes, though any dog that resembles a pit bull or pit bull mix can be included in the bans. Other dogs are also sometimes regulated, including American Bulldogs, Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, as well as mixes of these breeds or, again, dogs that simply resemble the restricted breeds. [1]
The term “pit bull” refers to a dog with certain characteristics, rather than a specific breed. Generally, the dogs have broad heads and muscular bodies. Pit bulls are targeted because of their history in dog fighting. [2]
Dog fighting dates to at least 43 CE, when the Romans invaded Britain, and both sides brought fighting dogs to the war. The Romans believed the British to have better-trained fighting dogs and began importing (and later exporting) the dogs for war and entertainment wherein the dogs were made to fight against wild animals, including elephants. From the 12th century until the 19th century, dogs were used for baiting chained bears and bulls. In 1835, England outlawed baiting, which then increased the popularity of dog-on-dog fights. [3] [4]
Fighting dogs arrived in the United States in 1817, whereupon Americans crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. The United Kennel Club endorsed the fights and provided referees. Dog fighting was legal in most US states until the 1860s, and it was not completely outlawed in all states until 1976. Today, dog fighting is a felony offense in all 50 states, though the fights thrive in illegal underground venues. [3] [4]
More than 700 cities in 29 states have breed-specific legislation, while 20 states do not allow breed-specific legislation, and one allows no new legislation after 1990, as of Apr. 1, 2020. [1]
|
# Internet & "Stupidity" - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Changing how the brain works and how we access and process information is not automatically negative.
Neuroscientist Erman Misirlisoy, PhD, argues that “internet usage has ‘Googlified’ our brains, making us more dependent on knowing where to access facts and less able to remember the facts themselves. This might sound a little depressing, but it makes perfect sense if we are making the most of the tools and resources available to us. Who needs to waste their mental resources on remembering that an ‘ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain,’ when the internet can tell us at a moment’s notice? Let’s save our brains for more important problems… [And] as with practically everything in the world, moderation and thoughtful consumption are likely to go a long way.”
While we do tend to use the internet to look up more facts now, consider what we did before the internet. Did we know this information? Or did we consult a cookbook or call a friend who knows how to roast chicken? Benjamin C. Storm, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Santa Cruz, explained, “It remains to be seen whether this increased reliance on the Internet is in any way different from the type of increased reliance one might experience on other information sources.”
As with anything in life, moderation and smart usage play a role in the internet’s effects on us. Nir Eyal, author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products (2013), summarized, “Technology is like smoking cannabis. Ninety percent of people who smoke cannabis do not get addicted. But the point is that you’re going to get some people who misuse a product; if it’s sufficiently good and engaging, that’s bound to happen.” We, and the internet, have to learn to moderate our intake.
Heather Kirkorian, PhD, Associate Professor in Early Childhood Psychology at the University of Wisconsin Madison, offered another example: “the effects of social media depend on whether we use them to connect with loved ones throughout the day and get social support versus [use them to] compare our lives to the often highly filtered lives of others and expose ourselves to bullying or other negative content.”
**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]
|
# American Socialism - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The American public supports the implementation of more socialist policies.
In general, socialist policies are broadly supported by Americans: 69% support medicare-for-all. 63% support free public college tuition. 59% support raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2025. 85% support paid work leave for illness. 82% support paid maternity leave. 69% support paid paternity leave. 67% support paid leave to care for an ill family member. 74% support continued social security benefits without cuts. 66% support government-led environmental protections. And 64% support a wealth tax.
**Background**
Socialism in the United States is an increasingly popular topic. Some argue that the country should actively move toward socialism to spur social progress and greater equity, while others demand that the country prevent this by any and all means necessary. This subject is often brought up in connection with universal healthcare and free college education, ideas that are socialist by definition, or as a general warning against leftist politics.
While some politicians openly promote socialism or socialist policies (Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example), others reject the socialist label (now Vice President Kamala Harris said she was “not a Democratic Socialist” during the 2020 presidential campaign) or invoke it as a dirty word that is contrary to American ideals (in the 2019 State of the Union, President Trump stated the US would “never be a socialist country” because “We are born free, and we will stay free”). [1] [2]
To consider whether the United States should adopt socialism or at least more socialist policies, the relevant terms must first be defined.
Socialism is an economic and social policy in which the public owns industry and products, rather than private individuals or corporations. Under socialism, the government controls most means of production and natural resources, among other industries, and everyone in the country is entitled to an equitable share according to their contribution to society. Individual private ownership is encouraged. [3]
Politically, socialist countries tend to be multi-party with democratic elections. Currently no country operates under a 100% socialist policy. Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, while heavily socialist, all combine socialism with capitalism. [4] [5]
Capitalism, the United States’ current economic model, is a policy in which private individuals and corporations control production that is guided through markets, not by the government. Capitalism is also called a free market economy or free enterprise economy. Capitalism functions on private property, profit motive, and market competition. [6]
Politically, capitalist countries range from democracies to monarchies to oligarchies to despotisms. Most western countries are capitalist, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand. Also capitalist are Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates. However, many of these countries, including the United States, have implemented socialist policies within their capitalist systems, such as social security, minimum wages, and energy subsidies. [7] [8]
Communism is frequently used as a synonym for socialism and the exact differences between the two are heavily debated. One difference is that communism provides everyone in the country with an equal share, rather than the equitable share promised by socialism. Communism is commonly summarized by the Karl Marx slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” and was believed by Marx to be the step beyond socialism. Individual private ownership is illegal in most communist countries. [4] [9]
Politically, communist countries tend to be led by one communist party, and elections are only within that party. Frequently, the military has significant political power. Historically, a secret police has also shared that power, as in the former Soviet Union, the largest communist country in history. Civil liberties (such as freedom of the press, speech, and assembly) are publicly embraced, but frequently limited in practice, often by force. Countries that are currently communist include China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Worth noting is that some of these countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, label themselves as democratic or socialist though they meet the definition of communism and are run by communist parties. Additionally, some communist countries, such as China and Vietnam, operate with partial free market economies, which is a cornerstone of capitalism, and some socialist policies. [4] [5] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Given those definitions, should the United States adopt more socialist policies such as free college, medicare-for-all, and the Green New Deal?
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden.
A 2010 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover. If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression.
**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**
Corporations and small businesses use social media to benefit themselves and consumers.
85% of fans of brands on Facebook recommend the brand to others and 71% of internet users are more likely to purchase from a brand that they are following on social media. Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported “at least one measurable business benefit.” In 2015, 98% of Fortune 500 companies used social media. Amongst these corporations the most popular sites were LinkedIn (used by 93% of companies), Glassdoor (87%), Twitter (78%), Facebook (74%), and YouTube (64%). Benefits for the consumer often include special promotions, product information, technical support, and customer service.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
Uniforms may have a detrimental effect on students’ self-image.
When students have to wear the same outfits, rather than being allowed to select clothes that suit their body types, they can suffer embarrassment at school. Child and teen development specialist Robyn Silverman told NBC News’ Today that students, especially girls, tend to compare how each other looks in their uniforms: “As a body image expert, I hear from students all the time that they feel it allows for a lot of comparison… So if you have a body that’s a plus-size body, a curvier body, a very tall body, a very short body, those girls often feel that they don’t look their best.” A study by researchers at Arizona State University found that “students from schools without uniforms reported higher self-perception scores than students from schools with uniform policies.” Some students also find uniforms less comfortable than their regular clothes, which may not be conducive to learning.
**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 More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
More gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers.
Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman’s risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States. A 2003 study of 23 populous high-income countries found that 86% of women killed by firearms were in the United States and American women are 11.4 times more likely to be the victims of gun homicides 57% of mass shootings involved domestic violence. For example, the 2011 mass shooting at a Seal Beach, CA hair salon reportedly began because of the shooter’s custody battle with his ex-wife who was a hair stylist at the salon. 31 states do not ban convicted misdemeanor stalkers from owning guns and 41 states do not force convicted domestic abusers from relinquishing guns they already own. 76% of women murdered and 85% of women who survived a murder attempt by an intimate partner were stalked in the year before the murder or murder attempt.
**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…
|
# Banned Books Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Children should not be exposed to sex, violence, drug use, or other inappropriate topics in school or public libraries.
Books in the young adult genre often contain adult themes that young people aren’t ready to experience. Of the top ten most challenged books in 2020, one had LGBTQ+ content, two were sexually explicit, five dealt with racism and anti-police opinions, and others had profanity and drug use.
According to Jenni White, a former public school science teacher, “Numerous studies on the use of graphic material by students indicate negative psychological effects,” including having “more casual sex partners and [beginning] having sex at younger ages.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that exposure to violence in media, including in books, can impact kids by making them act aggressively and desensitizing them to violence.
Kim Heinecke, a mother of four, wrote to her local Superintendent of Public Schools that “It is not a matter of ‘sheltering’ kids. It is a matter of guiding them toward what is best. We are the adults. It is our job to protect them – no matter how unpopular that may seem.”
**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 Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?'
**Argument**
Concealed guns increase crime.
A 2018 study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded, “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC [right-to-carry] laws reduce violent crime. Indeed, the weight of the evidence from the panel data estimates as well as the synthetic control analysis best supports the view that the adoption of RTC laws substantially raises overall violent crime in the ten years after adoption.” The authors found, “Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13 [percent to] 15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law.”
A 1995 study of five urban cities, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, concluded that gun homicide rates increased “on average by 4.5 per 100,000 persons” following the enactment of “shall-issue” laws.
A May 2009 study found that “shall-issue” laws were associated with increased numbers of aggravated assaults between 1977 and 2006.
Former Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck said, “I have seen far too much gun violence in my lifetime to think that more guns is a solution… a gun is more likely to be used against you than you use a gun in self-defense.”
**Background**
Carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have “unrestricted carry” and do not require permits.
Proponents of concealed carry say concealed carry deters crime, keeps individuals and the public safer, is protected by the Second Amendment, and protect women and minorities who can’t always rely on the police for protection.
Opponents of concealed carry say concealed carry increases crime, increases the chances of a confrontation becoming lethal, is not protected by the Second Amendment, and that public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers. Read more background…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Taxes:
The $290 billion national deficit of 1992 became a $124 billion surplus by 1999 because Clinton’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised taxes on the top income rate from 28 percent to 39.6 percent, thus increasing tax revenues. Just as the 1980s economic boom followed a tax increase by Reagan, the economy likewise improved after Clinton raised taxes in 1993. He also limited the ability of corporations to claim deductions for entertainment expenses.
**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…
|
# Zoos - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals.
Animal behaviorists often see zoo animals suffering from problems not seen in the wild, such as clinical depression in clouded leopards and gibbons, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in brown bears, and anxiety in giraffes. The animals experience these issues due to smaller enclosures, changes in diet and activities, and the introduction of things not seen in the wild, such as medical exams and people with cameras. The Toledo Zoo ran a psychiatric program in which a gorilla with premenstrual depression was prescribed Prozac. To ease them into new habitats, an agitated tiger was given Valium, and anxious zebras and wildebeests were given Haldol.
A study of captive chimpanzees found that “abnormal behaviour is endemic in the population,” and includes behaviors such as eating feces, twitching, rocking back and forth, plucking hair, pacing, vomiting, and self-mutilation, among others. The study concluded that the cause of such behavior could be mental health issues.
About 24% of captive orcas have “major” to “extreme” tooth wear and 60% had tooth fractures as a result of stress-induced teeth grinding. As a result of the 2013 documentary Blackfish, which exposed the psychological damage done to orcas by SeaWorld, California outlawed captive orca breeding.
**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.
|
# Is Binge Watching Bad for You? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Binge-watching makes the show less fulfilling.
A study found that people who watched multiple episodes of a show in one sitting reported “significantly less show enjoyment” than people who watched one episode at a time. Damon Lindelof, the co-creator of popular shows such as Lost, stated, “This idea of anticipation. That Christmas morning feeling… doesn’t exist in binge culture.”
The popularity of bingeing shows makes social media a minefield of spoilers for people who haven’t had time to finish a new season, and a lack of agreement over when the spoiler embargo should be lifted causes rifts among shows’ fanbases.
**Background**
The first usage of the term “binge-watch” dates back to 2003, but the concept of watching multiple episodes of a show in one sitting gained popularity around 2012. Netflix’s 2013 decision to release all 13-episodes in the first season of House of Cards at one time, instead of posting an episode per week, marked a new era of binge-watching streaming content. In 2015, “binge-watch” was declared the word of the year by Collins English Dictionary, which said use of the term had increased 200% in the prior year. [1] [2] [3]
73% of Americans admit to binge-watching, with the average binge lasting three hours and eight minutes. 90% of millennials and 87% of Gen Z stated they binge-watch, and 40% of those age groups binge-watch an average of six episodes of television in one sitting. [4] [5]
The coronavirus pandemic led to a sharp increase in binge-viewing: HBO, for example, saw a 65% jump in subscribers watching three or more episodes at once starting on Mar. 14, 2020, around the time when many states implemented stay-at-home measures to slow the spread of COVID-19. [28]
A 2021 Sykes survey found 38% of respondents streamed three or more hours of content on weekdays, and 48% did so on weekends. However, a Nielsen study found adults watched four or more hours of live and streaming TV a day, indicating individuals may be underestimating their TV consumption. [31]
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Using social media can harm students’ chances for college admission.
College administrators scan Facebook profiles for evidence of illegal behavior by students. A 2018 Kaplan Test Prep survey found that 25% of college admissions officers checked an applicant’s social media to learn more about them, up from 10% in 2008 but down from a high of 40% in 2015. 42% of these admissions officers discovered information that had a negative impact on prospective students’ admission chances. In 2014, only 3% of students surveyed believed the content of their social media presence could hurt their prospects of admission.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media causes people to spend less time interacting face-to-face.
A USC Annenberg School study found that the percentage of people reporting less face-to-face time with family in their homes rose from 8% in 2000 to 34% in 2011. 32% reported using social media or texting during meals (47% of 18-34 year olds) instead of talking with family and friends. 10% of people younger than 25 years old respond to social media and text messages during sex.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Students who own tablets purchase and read more books than those who read print books alone.
The average tablet-owning US student reads 24 books per year on a tablet compared with 15 in print for those who do not own a tablet. According to a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 30% of e-content readers (including 40% of those under age 30) say that they now spend more time reading than they used to due to the availability of e-content.
**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**
College graduates have more and better employment opportunities.
85.2% of college freshman said they attended college to “be able to get a better job.” The unemployment rate for Americans over 25 with a bachelor’s degree was 1.9% in Dec. 2019, compared to 2.7% for those with some college or associate’s degrees, 3.7% for high school graduates, and 5.2% for high school drop-outs. Underemployment, meaning insufficient work, is lower for college grads (6.2%) as compared to high school-only graduates (12.9%) and people without a high school diploma (18.7%). 58% of college graduates and people with some college or associate’s degrees reported being “very satisfied” with their jobs compared to 50% of high school graduates and 40% of people without a high school diploma.
**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 Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms in public schools undermine the promise of a free education by imposing an extra expense on families.
Parents already pay taxes, and they still need to buy regular clothes for their children to wear when they’re out of school and for dress-down days. The Children’s Commission on Poverty (UK) found that over “95% of parents on low incomes reported difficulties in meeting school-related costs,” including uniforms, despite their children attending tuition-free schools. Anderson, IN, parents Laura and Scott Bell their children’s school over its uniform policy, saying the $641 for their children’s uniforms broke the guarantee of a free public education. In York County, PA, a local NBC affiliate reported that some children were missing class because their families couldn’t afford to purchase the required uniforms.
**Background**
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).
Proponents say that school uniforms make schools safer for students, create a “level playing field” that reduces socioeconomic disparities, and encourage children to focus on their studies rather than their clothes.
Opponents say school uniforms infringe upon students’ right to express their individuality, have no positive effect on behavior and academic achievement, and emphasize the socioeconomic disparities they are intended to disguise. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Manufacturing tablets is environmentally destructive and dangerous to human health.
According to the New York Times, the “adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book.” One tablet requires the extraction of 33 pounds of minerals, 79 gallons of water, and 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels resulting in 66 pounds of carbon dioxide. Print books produce 100 times fewer greenhouse gases. Two gallons of water are required to make the pulp slurry that is pressed and heat-dried to make paper, and only two kilowatt hours are required to form and dry the sheets of paper.
**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 can entice people to waste time.
A survey of internet users aged 16-64 found that the average daily time spent on social media is 1.72 hours, which accounts for 28% of total time spent online. 36% of people surveyed listed social media as the “biggest waste of time,” above fantasy sports (25%), watching TV (23%), and shopping (9%). When alerted to new social media activity, such as a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task. In 30% of cases, it took two hours to fully return attention to the original task.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Major medical organizations state that vaccines are safe.
These organizations include: CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UNICEF, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), World Health Organization (WHO), Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Paediatric Society, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). The WHO states, “Vaccines are very safe.” The US Department of Health and Human Services states, “Vaccines are some of the safest medical products available.” A July 2020 study of FDA-approved vaccines from Jan. 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2015 conducted by researchers at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel stated “vaccines were found to be remarkably safe.”
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Cancel culture is not productive and does not bring about social change.
President Barack Obama, JD, stated, “Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was, I called you out… That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”
As Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Co-Founder of Black Lives Matter, notes, “People don’t understand that [social activist] organizing isn’t going online and cussing people out or going to a protest and calling something out.” Activism is hard work entailing sometimes boring meetings, strategy sessions, building a campaign, and getting petitions signed.
Aaron Rose, Corporate Diversity and Inclusion Consultant, explained, “Mainstream internet activism is a lot of calling out and blaming and shaming. We have to get honest with ourselves about whether calling out and canceling gives us more than a short-term release of cathartic anger.” Rose admitted that cancel culture did not give him the conclusions he wanted: “I was not seeing the true change I desired. … We were still sad and mad. And the bad people were still bad. And everyone was still traumatized.”
Frequently, cancel culture backfires and engenders sympathy for the alleged offender, leading to continued support by fans. Louis CK took what amounts to a 10-month vacation before selling out dozens of comedy shows. After enduring decades of cancellations and documentaries about their alleged misdeeds, both R. Kelly and Michael Jackson’s music saw increases in streaming. Kevin Hart withdrew from his Oscars hosting job but saw no decline in audience for his movies or stand-up specials.
Rose, among others, have promoted individual conversations with people to encourage growth on both sides. Sometimes termed “calling in.”
Author and Digital Strategist Maisha Z. Johnson offers “Addressing harmful behavior is important, but so is understanding that everyone is on a different step of their journey, so we all make mistakes. And we all have different strengths – so if someone’s lacking in one area, like knowing vocabulary words, we don’t have to treat them like they’re totally disposable to the movement. We can help them grow in that area, and hope that others would help us in the areas we need to grow, too.”
**Background**
Cancel culture, also known as callout culture, is the removal (“canceling”) of support for individuals and their work due to an opinion or action on their part deemed objectionable to the parties “calling” them out. [1]
The individuals are typically first called out on social media to magnify the public knowledge of their perceived offense, whereupon the campaign to cancel ensues. The canceling can take several forms, including the exerting of pressure on organizations to cancel the individual’s public appearances or speaking engagements and, in the case of businesses deemed offensive, organizing boycotts of their products. [1]
Celebrities and social and political leaders are frequently the targets of cancel campaigns. Actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was found guilty in 2018 of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman and accused of assault by more than 50 women, is only one of many, recent, high-profile examples. [2] But everyday people can be caught in the crosshairs as well. A public relations executive, for example, tweeted an offensive joke about AIDS before boarding a plane in London and traveling to South Africa. An uproar on Twitter followed, and by the time her plane landed, she had been “called out,” “canceled,” and fired. [3]
The cancel campaigns are not always so successful or one-sided. In July 2020, after Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue praised President Trump for promoting an Hispanic prosperity initiative, liberal Latino leaders organized a boycott of Goya products despite Unanue’s similar praise of President Obama. Instead of bankrupting the company, the attempted cancellation prompted the Bodega and Small Business Association to come to the company’s defense with a “buycott” to support the more than 13,000 shops that sell Goya products and thousands of black and Latino Goya employees. [4] [5]
Anyone who remembers reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter knows cancel culture is not new. What is new, however, is social media’s ability to boost the speed, scope, and impact of a “cancel” and the influence this has had on traditional bastions of free speech. The now endemic quality of cancel culture has even spawned college classes, such as one taught by Visiting Professor Loretta J. Ross at Smith College, in which Ross says she is “challenging the call-out culture.” [34]
|
# Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?'
**Argument**
Carrying a concealed gun keeps the individual carrying the gun and the public safer.
Larry Keane, JD, Senior Vice President for Government & Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, stated, “Although the news stories rarely get coverage beyond their immediate media market, individuals with legally concealed carry firearms have successfully protected themselves and have come to the assistance of their fellow citizens on numerous occasions. They have also aided law enforcement officers who were in grave danger. As the number of permits holders has risen there has not been a ‘Wild West’ of reckless gunfire that the anti-gun activists have long predicted.”
According to Amy Swearer, JD, Legal Fellow at the Meese Center, and Cooper Conway, a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation, “Americans defend themselves with their firearms between 500,000 and 3 million times every year. It’s unclear how many of these defensive gun uses involve concealed-carry permit holders carrying in public places, but our own records show that concealed-carry permit holders can and do save lives.” They continue, “Moreover, concealed-carry permit holders have intervened to stop many scenarios that likely would have turned into mass killings but for their actions.”
**Background**
Carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have “unrestricted carry” and do not require permits.
Proponents of concealed carry say concealed carry deters crime, keeps individuals and the public safer, is protected by the Second Amendment, and protect women and minorities who can’t always rely on the police for protection.
Opponents of concealed carry say concealed carry increases crime, increases the chances of a confrontation becoming lethal, is not protected by the Second Amendment, and that public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers. Read more background…
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.