text
stringlengths 558
17k
|
|---|
# Should Election Day Be a National Holiday? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Making Election Day a national holiday will disadvantage low-income and blue collar workers.
Federal law doesn’t require private employers to give employees paid federal holidays. A part-time hourly worker is more likely to have multiple jobs, none of which are likely to offer time off for a national holiday.
Annie McDonald, Editor of the Berkeley Public Policy Journal, noted that the workers who are least likely to get paid holidays are those who already have less of a voice in the political process: “Americans working in retail, hospitality, and service jobs, for example, would most likely not receive the benefit of a paid holiday to vote. In fact, these voters may be more likely to have to work as a result of a federal election holiday, where they may have had time off previously on a random Tuesday in November. Additionally, many of these individuals rely on school days as childcare for their children. An additional day off school would prove to be problematic for individuals who may not have other readily accessible forms of childcare.”
People who have already suffered significant disenfranchisement, such as women and people of color, are more likely to be working those low-income jobs that wouldn’t get the time off to vote even on a national holiday. Holidays usually mean more work hours for retail workers, because stores run promotions and sales.
**Background**
Election Day in the United States has occurred on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November ever since President John Tyler signed an 1845 law establishing a specific voting day for the entire country. [1] The decision was made taking into account farmers, a large portion of the voting constituency at the time, who would not have been able to travel to polling places in winter months or during planting or harvest times. [2] Sundays were for rest and worship, and on Wednesdays farmers typically sold their crops at the market, making Tuesdays the best day of the week. [1]
Over time, voting rights expanded from only white, male landowners age 21 and older to include women and people of color, as well as citizens age 18 and up, resulting in a dramatic increase in the voting-eligible population and a shift in voter demographics. [3] In 1800, 83% of the American labor force was agrarian, but today only 11% of total US employment is agriculture-related. [4][5]
The United States currently has 10 national holidays, including Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Christmas Day. [6] Election Day could be made a holiday if a bill were passed by the House and Senate then signed into law by the president. Approximately two million people who work for the federal government would be given a paid day off, and private companies might follow suit. [7] A handful of states have made election day a state holiday, including New York, Hawaii, Kentucky, and, in Apr. 2020, Virginia. [36]
Would making Election Day a federal holiday increase voter turnout and celebrate democracy? Or is it an optimistic idea that would exclude already disadvantaged voters while failing to increase turnout?
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms may deter crime and increase student safety.
In Long Beach, CA, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district’s schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon “look-alikes”) decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%.
One year after Sparks Middle School in Nevada instituted a uniform policy, school police data showed a 63% drop in police log reports, and decreases were also noted in gang activity, student fights, graffiti, property damage, and battery. A peer-reviewed study found that schools with uniform policies had 12% fewer firearm-related incidents and 15% fewer drug-related incidents than schools without uniforms.
School uniforms also prevent students from concealing weapons under baggy clothing, make it easier to keep track of students on field trips, and make intruders on campus more visible. Frank Quatrone, superintendent in the Lodi district of New Jersey, stated that “When you have students dressed alike, you make them safer. If someone were to come into a building, the intruder could easily be recognized.”
**Background**
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).
Proponents say that school uniforms make schools safer for students, create a “level playing field” that reduces socioeconomic disparities, and encourage children to focus on their studies rather than their clothes.
Opponents say school uniforms infringe upon students’ right to express their individuality, have no positive effect on behavior and academic achievement, and emphasize the socioeconomic disparities they are intended to disguise. Read more background…
|
# GMO Pros and Cons - Should Genetically Modified Organisms Be Grown?'
**Argument**
Certain GM crops harm the environment through the increased use of toxic herbicides and pesticides.
An “epidemic of super-weeds” has developed resistance to the herbicides that GM crops were designed to tolerate since herbicide-resistant GM crop varieties were developed in 1996. Those weeds choke crops on over 60 million acres of US croplands, and the solution being presented to farmers is to use more herbicides. This has led to a tenfold increase in the use of the weed killer Roundup, which is made by Monsanto, the largest GMO seed producer.
The increased use of the weed killer glyphosate (created by Monsanto) to kill the weeds that compete with crops can harm pollinating insects. Scientists blame Roundup (the active ingredient of which is glyphosate) for a 90% decrease in the US monarch butterfly population. The weed killer potentially create health risks for humans who ingest traces of herbicides used on GM crops. When glyphosate is used near rivers, local wildlife is impacted, including a higher mortality rates among amphibians.
A report from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network found that “Herbicide-tolerant crops reduce weed diversity in and around fields, which in turn reduces habitat and food for other important species.”
Melissa Waddell, Editor of Living Non-GMO, explained, “Most GMO crops are engineered for herbicide resistance, so fields can be sprayed liberally with weedkillers that eliminate everything but the cash crop. Weeds are a huge problem for farmers — they compete with cash crops for nutrients, water and light. But diverse plant life also protects the soil from erosion and nutrient loss. It supports the pollinators and other beneficial insects that do so much of our agricultural labor. While ‘welcoming the weeds’ isn’t a practical solution, neither is wiping out plant life with toxic chemicals. Between herbicide tolerance and built-in pesticides, GMOs are a double-decker biodiversity-wrecker.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDid You Know?Discussion QuestionsTake Action
Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. The earliest form of selective breeding were simple and have persisted: farmers save and plant only the seeds of plants that produced the most tasty or largest (or otherwise preferable) results. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered and developed the basics of DNA by crossbreeding peas. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [1] [2] [53] [55]
To create a GMO plant, scientists follow these basic steps over several years:
Identify the desired trait and find an animal or plant with that trait. For example, scientists were looking to make corn more insect-resistant. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt), that naturally produces an insecticide commonly used in organic agriculture.Copy the specific gene for the desired trait.Insert the specific gene into the DNA of the plant scientists want to change. In the above example, the insecticide gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was inserted into corn.Grow the new plant and perform tests for safety and the desired trait. [55]
According to the Genetic Literacy Project, “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops, allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GMO. [58]
In the United States, the health and environmental safety standards for GM crops are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Between 1985 and Sep. 2013, the USDA approved over 17,000 different GM crops for field trials, including varieties of corn, soybean, potato, tomato, wheat, canola, and rice, with various genetic modifications such as herbicide tolerance; insect, fungal, and drought resistance; and flavor or nutrition enhancement. [44] [45]
In 1994, the “FLAVR SAVR” tomato became the first genetically modified food to be approved for public consumption by the FDA. The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life. [51]
Recently, the term “bioengineered” food has come into popularity, under the argument that almost all food has been “genetically modified” via selective breeding or other basic growing methods. Bioengineered food refers specifically to food that has undergone modification using rDNA technology, but does not include food genetically modified by basic cross-breeding or selective breeding. As of Jan. 10, 2022, the USDA listed 12 bioengineered products available in the US: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet. [56] [57]
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard established mandatory national standards for labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. The Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 and compliance became mandatory on Jan. 1, 2022. [46]
49% of US adults believe that eating GMO foods are “worse” for one’s health, 44% say they are “neither better nor worse,” and 5% believe they are “better,” according to a 2018 Pew Research Center report. [9]
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Private Social Security accounts will undermine the guaranteed retirement income provided by Social Security by putting peoples’ retirement money at the whim of the stock market.
During the 2008 financial crisis, the three main stock market indexes all dropped precipitously: the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 33.8%, the S&P 500 dropped by 38.5%, and the NASDAQ fell 40.5%.
Due to the boom and bust cycles of the market, those who retire during an economic downturn would be significantly worse off than those who retire during a boom. [39] Even diversified mutual and bond funds carry significant risk and are not guaranteed or insured by the government.
Thus, guaranteed benefits would be reduced significantly under a privatized system. In order to fund private retirement accounts, special insurance protections that are provided by Social Security, such as disability and survivor’s insurance, would need to be reduced.
A 2005 Century Foundation analysis of the Bush Administration’s privatization proposal demonstrated that the diversion of payroll taxes to private accounts would reduce benefit levels by 44% below their 2005 levels by 2052.
Economist Dean Baker, PhD, estimated that an average 15-year-old in 2005 who retires in 2055 stands to lose more than $160,000 of his scheduled benefits under Bush’s plan, and gain less than a third of that loss back from his investment in a private account.
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Private retirement accounts give workers the contractual right to retirement benefits, a right missing from the current Social Security system.
In the 1960 US Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor, a retiring legal immigrant eligible for Social Security benefits who paid into the system for 19 years was denied his Social Security retirement money after being deported for being a member of the Communist Party.
Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, stated that “under a privatized Social Security system, workers would have full property rights in their retirement accounts. They would own the money in them, the same way people own their IRAs or 401(k) plans. Congress would have no right to touch that money.” He also stated that privatizing Social Security would be a “big boost for the poor” because of inheritable benefits.
The present system is inequitable because people who live shorter lives collect less of their earned benefits and yet those benefits cannot be transferred to family members. Personal accounts will provide the option to bequeath assets to heirs upon death, an option currently missing from Social Security.
As President George W. Bush stated in his 2005 State of the Union speech, “you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.”
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Should People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
Humans are omnivores and have evolved to consume even more meat.
Eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 2.3 million years. The inclusion of meat in the ancestral diet provided a dense form of nutrients and protein that, when combined with high-calorie low-nutrient carbohydrates such as roots, allowed us to develop our large brains and intelligence.
Evidence shows our taste buds evolved to crave meat’s savory flavor.
**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…
|
# Animal Dissection - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Methods used to supply animals for dissections are bad for the environment and inhumane.
An estimated 99% of animals used in dissections are caught in the wild, a practice that may decrease local populations, lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem, and reduce biodiversity.
Fetal pigs used in schools are sourced from the meat industry and grown in horrific conditions. Animalearn, the educational arm of the American Anti- Society, said, “they are deprived of space, fresh air, and fresh forage for the duration of their shortened lives… The fetuses that end up in the dissection tray are taken from pregnant sows at the slaughterhouse.”
Animals sold to schools for dissection may have died by suffocation, electrocution, drowning, or euthanasia. Cats and dogs used for dissection are sourced from shelters that unnecessarily euthanize the animals instead of adopting them out to families.
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
The promise of a secure and stable job attracts many teachers to the teaching profession, and eliminating teacher tenure would hamper teacher recruitment.
Starting salaries for teachers are frequently lower than other occupations requiring similar levels of education and training. A Sep. 2018 report by the Economic Policy Institute found that public school teachers received 18.7% lower weekly earnings than workers with comparable education and work experience.
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Many obese people live long, healthy lives.
A 2013 Lancet article noted that as many as one third of obese people are “healthy obese,” meaning that despite being significantly overweight they have normal cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and no sign of diabetes. Obese people tend to go to the doctor more and have regular checks for other risk factors and diseases. Many people with a BMI (Body Mass Index; a measure of body fat based on height and weight) in the obesity range are not physically impaired and live normal lives. BMI does not take into account the overall health of the individual and can identify fit, muscular people as obese because muscle weighs more than fat.
**Background**
The United States is the second most obese industrialized country in the world. 39.6% of American adults in 2016 were obese, compared to 14% in the mid-1970s. Obesity accounts for 19.8% of deaths and 21% of healthcare spending in the United States.
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it meets the definition of disease; it decreases life expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease because it is a preventable risk factor for other diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is caused by exercising too little. Read more background…
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, JD, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, “the Framer’s single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias,” hence the inclusion of the phrase “well regulated militia.” Michael Waldman, JD, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
**Background**
The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.
Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media enables cheating on school assignments.
Students in California, New York City, and Houston posted photos of standardized tests to social media sites, allowing students who had not yet taken the tests to see the questions (and potentially find answers) ahead of time. The SAT has had similar problems with students posting parts of the exam to social media. In Mar. 2015, two students in Maryland were accused of cheating on the 10th grade Common Core tests by posting questions on Twitter. Pearson, a company that administers standardized tests, identified 76 cases of students posting test materials online spanning six states in the first three months of 2015.
**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 sites empower individuals to make social change and do social good on a community level.
Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, “Never Seconds,” which exposed the state of her school’s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of “Friends of Never Seconds” charity to feed children globally. Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. Hillsborough, CA, freshman varsity soccer goalie Daniel Cui was blamed for and bullied about a losing season until over 100 of his teammates and classmates changed their Facebook profile photos to one of Cui making a save, silencing the bullies and building Cui’s confidence.
**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 a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
A college degree is no guarantee of workplace benefits.
In 2013, 68.9% of employed new college graduates did not receive health insurance through their employers and, in 2011, 27.2% received retirement coverage (down from 41.5% in 2000).
**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…
|
# Vaping Pros and Cons - 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Vaping is a safer way to ingest tobacco.
A UK government report stated that the “best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes.”
Matthew Carpenter, Co-Director of the Tobacco Research Program at the Hollings Cancer Center, said, “Combustible cigarettes are the most harmful form of nicotine delivery.”
E-cigarettes are safer for indoor use. Researchers found that the level of nicotine on surfaces in the homes of e-cigarette users was nearly 200 times lower than in the homes of traditional cigarette smokers. Nicotine left behind on surfaces can turn into carcinogens; the amount of nicotine found where vapers live was similar to the trace amounts in the homes of nonsmokers.
Traditional cigarettes are known to cause health problems such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Worldwide, smoking is the top cause of preventable death, responsible for over seven million deaths each year.
The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine found conclusive evidence that switching to e-cigarettes reduces exposure to toxicants and carcinogens. Burning a traditional cigarette releases noxious gases such as carbon monoxide. Cigarette smoke contains tar, which accounts for most of the carcinogens associated with smoking. E-cigarettes don’t have those gases or tar.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Vaping is the act of using e-cigarettes, which were first introduced in the United States around 2006. [5]
E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol vapor for inhalation. The liquid used in e-cigarettes is also known as e-liquid or vape juice. The main components are generally flavoring, nicotine, and water, along with vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol, which distribute the flavor and nicotine in the liquid and create the vapor. Popular flavorings include mint, mango, and tobacco. [3] [4] [44] [45]
E-cigarettes are also known as “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” “vaporizers,” “e-pipes,” and “electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).” Some e-cigarettes are made to resemble regular cigarettes, cigars, or pipes, while others look like pens or USB flash drives. [7] [42] [43]
The JUUL brand of e-cigarettes, a vaporizer shaped like a USB drive, launched in 2015 and captured nearly 75% of the market in 2018, becoming so popular that vaping is often referred to as “juuling.” Juul’s market popularity has since declined to 42% in 2020. [7] [8] [9] [51]
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated e-cigarettes as a tobacco product since 2016. On Sep. 11, 2019, the Trump administration announced plans to have the FDA end sales of non-tobacco e-cigarette flavors such as mint or menthol in response to concerns over teen vaping. E-cigarette manufacturers were required to request FDA permission to keep flavored products on the market. The FDA had until Sep. 9, 2021 to make a decision. [6][46] [49]
On Sep. 9, 2021, Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock and Director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products Mitch Zeller announced that the FDA had made decisions on 93% of the 6.5 million submitted applications for “deemed” new tobacco products (“‘deemed’ new” means the FDA newly has authority to review the products but the products may already be on the market), including denying 946,000 vaping products “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use.” The FDA had taken no action on JUUL products as of Sep. 9. [55] [56] [57]
On Oct. 12, 2021, the FDA authorized the Vuse e-cigarette and cartridges, marketed by R.J. Reynolds one of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers. The move is the first time the FDA authorized any vaping product. According to a statement from the FDA, the organization “determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth.” [58]
On June 23, 2022, the FDA ordered Juul to stop selling “all of their products currently marketed in the United States.” The order included removing products currently on the market, including Juul devices (vape pens) and pods (cartridges). The following day, June 24, 2022, a federal appeals court temporarily put the ban on hold while the court reviewed Juul’s appeal. On Sep. 6, 2022, Juul settled a lawsuit brought by almost 36 states and Puerto Rico. The states and Puerto Rico accused Juul of marketing to minors. Juul admitted no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuit, but the company will have to pay $438.5 million, stop marketing to youth, stop funding education in schools, and stop misrepresenting the amount of nicotine in the products. [61] [62] [63]
Nearly 11 million American adults used e-cigarettes in 2018, more than half of whom were under age 35. One in five high school students used e-cigarettes to vape nicotine in 2018. E-cigarettes were the fourth most popular tobacco products with 4% of retail sales, behind traditional cigarettes (83%), chewing/smokeless tobacco (8%), and cigars (5%) as of Feb. 2019. The global e-cigarette and vape market was worth $15.04 billion in 2020. [1][2][8] [50]
According to the most recent CDC data (2018), 9.7% of current cigarette smokers were also current vapers, though 49.4% of current smokers had vaped at some point. Of former smokers who had quit within the last year, 25.2% were current vapers and 57.3% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit one to four years ago, 17.3% were current vapers and and 48.6% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit five or more years ago, 1.7% were current vapers and 9% had tried vaping. And of people who have never smoked, 1.5% were current vapers and 6.5% had tried vaping. [52]
18-29 year olds were more likely to say they vaped (17%) than smoked cigarettes, while every older age group was more likely to smoke than vape. [54]
|
# Should the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Be Raised?'
**Argument**
Raising the corporate income tax rate would force companies to take headquarters and earnings overseas.
In 2017, the United States had the third highest combined federal and local average corporate tax rates in the world at about 39%, behind only the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico. The high tax rate forced American companies to relocate their employees overseas.
Johnson Controls, a company with a market value of $23 billion, moved its headquarters from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Ireland in 2016. In a memo to employees, a spokesperson explained the move would save the company about $150 million dollars in US taxes annually, and that setting up headquarters abroad “retains maximum flexibility for our balance sheet and ability to invest in growth opportunities everywhere around the world.”
High corporate income tax rates encourage US companies to store their foreign earnings abroad instead of investing it into expansion and employment in the United States. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that untaxed foreign earnings of American companies totaled approximately $2.6 trillion in 2015.
A J.P. Morgan study found that 60% of the cash held by 602 US multi-national companies was sitting in foreign accounts. If an income tax cut were offered to companies that returned this cash to the US, an estimated $663 billion could be invested into business expansion and job growth in the United States.
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
The black market and organized crime benefit from marijuana legalization.
Law enforcement says that legal marijuana has actually enhanced opportunities for the black market. Prices charged by state-licensed sellers can easily be undercut by cartels. A drug dealer told Vice News, “Right now with the way the tax structure is in Washington, the black market is going to thrive.”
In Colorado, a sharp increase in marijuana-related charges filed under the state’s Organized Crime Control Act coincided with the legalization of marijuana, indicating a rise in organized crime. The Colorado Attorney General’s office stated that legalization “has inadvertently helped fuel the business of Mexican drug cartels… cartels are now trading drugs like heroin for marijuana, and the trade has since opened the door to drug and human trafficking.” Local officials said that Mexican cartels were growing marijuana under the cover of legal operations in Colorado and using that to fuel the black market in other states.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Character:
Reagan’s hands-off leadership style manifested into an inability to control his administration from potentially illegal activities, e.g. the “Iran-Contra” scandal. His “troika,” the nickname given to Chief of Staff James Baker, Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver, and Counselor Edwin Meese, made many of Reagan’s key administrative decisions for him.
**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 Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Environment:
Clinton passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) despite the fact that it traded lower environmental standards for increased free trade. NAFTA resulted in more air pollution on the US/Mexico border, which experts estimated would cost $15 billion to clean up. Clinton also signed a 1995 measure to allow logging in national forests which suspended environmental laws protecting those forests.
**Background**
William Jefferson Clinton, known as Bill Clinton, served as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates, and a budget surplus. They give him credit for eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare, despite being forced to deal with a Republican-controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-plagued presidency because it was the result of other factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial crisis that began in 2007. They point to his impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass universal health care coverage as further evidence that he was not a good president. Read more background…
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
OTC birth control pills would be more affordable.
Moving the Pill over-the-counter would eliminate the insurance companies as middle-man between women and the Pill, thus making the drugs less expensive.
Jeffrey A Singer, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, noted that moving birth control to OTC status could make the Pill less expensive by selling the drug directly to consumers rather than through third-party insurance companies that inflate the prices.
Getting birth control by prescription has several associated costs that would be eliminated with OTC status, including co-pays for doctor’s visits, time taken off work to go to the doctor, childcare, and other related costs.
Uninsured women may also save money by eliminating the insurance companies as middle-man. Uninsured women, about 11% of US women ages 19 to 64, paid $370 on average for a year’s worth of Pills (about $30.83 per month), which was 68% of their total healthcare spending for the year, and about 51 hours of work for someone making the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Those numbers don’t include what an uninsured woman pays for the doctor’s visit and associated costs (time off work, childcare, etc), which could also be saved by popping into a pharmacy on her regular errands.
**Background**
Of the 72.2 million American women of reproductive age, 64.9% use a contraceptive. Of those, 9.1 million (12.6% of contraceptive users) use birth control pills, which are the second most commonly used method of contraception in the United States after female sterilization (aka tubal ligation or “getting your tubes tied”). The Pill is currently available by prescription only, and a debate has emerged about whether the birth control pill should be available over-the-counter (OTC), which means the Pill would be available along with other drugs such as Tylenol and Benadryl in drug store aisles. Since 1976, more than 90 drugs have switched from prescription to OTC status, including Sudafed (1976), Advil (1984), Rogaine (1996), Prilosec (2003), and Allegra (2011). Read more background…
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Gun control laws such as background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy.
Background checks would require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid’s 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a “worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes “on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.”
**Background**
The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.
Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Read more background…
|
# Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?'
**Argument**
Private citizens with little or no expert training jeopardize public safety.
Economics PhD student, Anna E. Kyriazis, found that switching from permitted carry to constitutional carry (no-permit carry), “increases the rate of people fatally shot by police by 5.2%. This effect is due to the fact that citizens considered unqualified under RTC can carry concealed weapons under PC, increasing the risk that police officers face when interacting
with the public.”
The current trend in concealed carry laws is to move toward constitutional carry: 16 states have constitutional carry as of Dec. 2020.
When a permit is not required, or when permit laws are lax, crucial screenings, background checks, and gun safety training are not required.
When he vetoed a permitless carry law in 2017, Montana Governor Steve Bullock stated, “While I will fiercely defend the 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens, I cannot support an absurd concept that threatens the safety of our communities by not providing for the basic fundamentals of gun safety or mental health screening.”
Mark Schauf, Police Chief of Baraboo, Wisconsin, said, “as police officers, we’re required to have training before we get our weapons and a certain number of training hours throughout the year. If we have to be trained, it would only make sense that a person in public would want to be trained, as well.”
Everytown for Gun Safety explains, “Permitless carry laws and legislation… often allow carry by irresponsible and dangerous people, such as violent criminals and weapons offenders, people who pose a safety risk, and teenagers. Permitless carry legislation is part of the NRA’s broader agenda to weaken and repeal important gun safety measures, allowing more guns in public and undermining public safety.”
**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…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media allows for quick, easy dissemination of public health and safety information from reputable sources.
The US military and Department of Veterans Affairs use social media to help prevent suicide. The World Health Organization (WHO) uses social media to “disseminate health information and counter rumours,” which was especially helpful after the Mar. 2011 Japanese earthquake and nuclear disaster when false information spread about ingesting salt to combat radiation. The Boston Health Commission used social media to get information to its 4,500 Twitter followers about clinic locations and wait times for vaccines during the H1N1 outbreak.
**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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates.
As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland’s Broadview Church, “when Christians speak, we shouldn’t have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn’t be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place.”
**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…
|
# Ride-Sharing Apps - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Ride-hailing drivers earn low pay that is often below minimum wage.
The Economic Policy Institute stated, “Uber drivers earn less than what 90 percent of workers earn,” and their hourly compensation “falls below the mandated minimum wage in nine of 20 major markets.”
A 2018 report from economists at UC Berkeley and the New School found that 40% of ride-hailing drivers “have incomes so low they qualify for Medicaid and another 16 percent have no health insurance; 18 percent qualify for federal supplemental nutrition assistance (nearly twice the rate for New York City workers overall).”
Half of ride-hailing drivers are the main earners for their families and are supporting children Given a median hourly pay of $14.73 for Uber drivers, a 40-hour work week would result in an annual salary of close to $31,000 before vehicle expenses, and about $20,000 after accounting for costs incurred by drivers – right at the poverty threshold for a family of three. Wages for drivers dropped 53% from 2014 to 2017.
As contract workers, drivers don’t receive employee benefits such as health insurance. They also pay for gas and car maintenance, something 44% of drivers say they have a hard time affording.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The first Uber ride was on July 5, 2010 in San Francisco, CA. The app launched internationally in 2011 and reached one billion rides on Dec. 30, 2015, quickly followed by five billion on May 20, 2017 and 10 billion on June 10, 2018. [40]
On May 22, 2012, Lyft launched in San Francisco as a part of Zimride and expanded to 60 cities in 2014 and to 100 more in 2017, at which point Lyft claimed more than one million rides a day. On Nov. 13, 2017, Lyft went international, allowing the company to reach one billion rides on Sep. 18, 2018. [41]
Other ride-hailing and ride-sharing apps include Gett (which partners with Lyft in the US), Curb, Wingz, Via, Scoop, and Bridj. [42]
36% of Americans said they used ride-hailing services such as Uber or Lyft, according to a Jan. 4, 2019 Pew Research Center Survey. Use is up significantly from 2015 when just 15% had used the apps. [38]
But use varies among populations. 45% of urban residents, 51% of people who were 18 to 29, 53% of people who earned $75,000 or more per year, and 55% of people with college degrees, used the apps, compared to 19% of rural residents, 24% of people aged 50 or older, 24% of people who earn $30,000 or less per year, and 20% of people with a high school diploma or less. [38]
In 2018, 70% of Uber and Lyft trips occurred in nine big metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. [3]
Uber officially overtook yellow cabs in New York City in July 2017, when it reported an average of 289,000 trips per day compared to 277,000 taxi rides. More than 2.61 billion ride-hailing trips were taken in 2017, a 37% increase over the 1.90 billion trips in 2016. Ride-hailing trips were down significantly in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [3] [4] [39]
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Education:
After “A Nation at Risk”, a negative report on the nation’s educational system, was released in Apr. 1983, President Reagan increased the budget for the Department of Education by $6 billion over the next three years. During the Reagan Administration, state education aid increased 20%, or almost $35 billion and, in 1988, it comprised a nearly 50% slice of revenue from all sources for education.
**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…
|
# Historic Statue Removal - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The statues represent the country’s history, no matter how complicated. Taking them down is to censor, whitewash, and potentially forget that history.
Of the calls to take down Confederate monuments, President Donald Trump stated, “This cruel campaign of censorship and exclusion violates everything we hold dear as Americans. They want to demolish our heritage so they can impose a new oppressive regime in its place.” Trump argued the plight to save the statues “is a battle to save the Heritage, History, and Greatness of our Country!”
Citizens of the United States have the right to hold controversial opinions and build statues to honor their beliefs. The First Amendment protects everyone’s speech, not just the speech approved by the majority.
The history of the United States is multi-layered, complicated, and ever-evolving. Those who disagree with the beliefs upheld by the statues should work to understand the history these monuments represent, rather than trying to simply remove them and the history from sight.
John Daniel Davidson, Political Editor at The Federalist, explained, “That they were wrong about slavery does not excuse us today from the burden of trying to understand what motivated them to fight—and what motivated them and their families to undertake a flurry of monument-building decades later as the surviving veterans began to die off… A more mature society would recognize that the past is always with you and must always be kept in mind. There’s a reason Christians in Rome didn’t topple all the pagan statues and buildings in the city, or raze the Colosseum.”
Each Confederate monument is a reminder not only of the Civil War and the end of slavery, but the assertion of the federal government’s dominance over states’ rights, as well as the persistence of systemic racism.
Lawrence A. Kuznar, PhD, Professor of Anthropology at Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, states, “removing Confederate statues amounts to whitewashing our history, turning our heads away from the inconvenient truths of our past. We should let them stand and use them to remind ourselves of what we are and are not, the cost our forebears paid for our freedom and to educate our children.”
**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]
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself.
Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. Preliminary research and anecdotal evidence from doctors suggest that obesity is the second most significant risk factor for COVID-19 (coronavirus) after older age. Young adults who are obese and contract COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized, even if otherwise healthy. Doctors theorize that compromised respiratory function, compression of the diaphragm, lungs, and chest capacity, and low-grade inflammation already present in people with obesity increase their risk of contracting COVID-19.
**Background**
The United States is the second most obese industrialized country in the world. 39.6% of American adults in 2016 were obese, compared to 14% in the mid-1970s. Obesity accounts for 19.8% of deaths and 21% of healthcare spending in the United States.
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it meets the definition of disease; it decreases life expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease because it is a preventable risk factor for other diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is caused by exercising too little. Read more background…
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Most women want OTC access to birth control pills and say it would improve their lives.
62.2% of women surveyed indicated that they were in favor of OTC Pills. The same survey found that 28% of women using no birth control and 32.7% of women using a less effective form of birth control would use OTC Pills, a market of about 11 million women. 78.7% of women said it was “extremely or quite important” that birth control be easily obtained.
62.5% of women surveyed said birth control reduces stress, 56.3% said it helps working women continue to work, 49.0% said it helped women get an education, and 48.7% said it led to more stable relationships with partners.
Research supports these women’s conclusions, because state laws that allowed early access to the Pill (17 or 18 years old, instead of 21) are linked to higher women’s college graduation and employment rates, increased earning power, narrowed gender pay gap, and longer lasting marriages.
OTC birth control pills would also be more convenient, eliminating the need for a woman to make a doctor’s appointment, take time off work, and rearrange her schedule.
**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 Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms do not improve attendance, academic preparedness, or exam results.
David L. Brunsma, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), co-authored a study that analyzed a national sample of 10th graders and found “no effects of uniforms on absenteeism, behavioral problems (fights, suspensions, etc.), or substance use on campus” and “no effects” on “pro-school attitudes, academic preparedness, and peer attitudes toward school.” Brunsma also found a “negative effect of uniforms on academic achievement,” and later found that uniforms were equally ineffective on elementary students and eighth graders.
A peer-reviewed study found “no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and history examinations… [I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative.”
**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…
|
# Dakota Access Pipeline Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline will help the United States to become more energy independent.
There are 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines currently running through the United States. Reducing oil imports from the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere lowers , which in turn bolsters national security and creates leverage to push for human rights improvements in oil-producing nations. Oil imports account for nearly two-thirds of the US annual trade deficit, but North Dakota’s 251% increase in oil production since 2010 can significantly cut back on the billions of dollars leaving the US economy. President Obama spoke about increased domestic in his 2013 State of the Union speech, saying, “After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future.” The pipeline is considered a big step in that direction.
**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 There Really a Santa Claus?'
**Argument**
“Mountains of historical data and more than 50 years of NORAD tracking information leads us to believe that Santa Claus is alive and well in the hearts of people throughout the world.”
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), “based on flight profile data gathered from over 50 years of NORAD’s radar and satellite tracking, concludes that Santa probably stands about 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighs approximately 260 pounds (before cookies). Based on fighter-aircraft photos, we know he has a generous girth (belly), rosy cheeks from sleigh riding in cold weather, and a flowing white beard.
NORAD can confirm that Santa’s sleigh is a versatile, all weather, multi-purpose, vertical short-take-off and landing vehicle. It is capable of traveling vast distances without refueling and is deployed, as far as we know, only on December 24th (and sometimes briefly for a test flight about a month before Christmas).”
**Background**
Once a year, millions of children around the world eagerly wait for a plump, bearded man dressed in red and white to bring them presents. Known as Santa Claus, his origins are mysterious and his very existence has been disputed. Some people believe that he lives and works in the North Pole, employs a group of elves to manufacture toys, distributes the gifts annually with the aid of flying reindeer, and regularly utters “ho ho ho” in a commanding voice.
But is Santa Claus man or myth? Santa believers argue that he is commonly sighted at shopping malls, that the disappearance of milk and cookies left for him is evidence of his existence, and that, after all, those Christmas gifts have to come from somewhere.
Santa skeptics argue that no one man could deliver presents to millions of households in one night, that his toy factory has never been located in the vicinity of the North Pole, and that Christmas presents are really purchased in secret by parents.
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Social Policy:
To “finally break the poverty trap,” as Reagan stated in his 1987 State of the Union Address, he signed the Family Support Act on Oct. 12, 1988. The Act required states to establish and operate a Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program (JOBS) to assure needy families with children obtain the training and employment necessary to avoid long-term welfare. Reagan also helped save Social Security by passing the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. It provided extra revenue dedicated to securing the solvent future of Social Security.
**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 Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Marriage is for procreation. Same sex couples should be prohibited from marriage because they cannot produce children together.
The purpose of marriage should not shift away from producing and raising children to adult gratification.
A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”
Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”
Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.”
Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don’t want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may change their minds.
**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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Health:
Clinton sought to bring attention and action to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Funding for AIDS-related programs increased 150 percent during his presidency, and he was a leader in developing international initiatives to search for a vaccine. He signed the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act of 1996, allowing women to stay in the hospital for 48 to 96 hours after giving birth instead of being kicked out in less than 24 hours.
**Background**
William Jefferson Clinton, known as Bill Clinton, served as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates, and a budget surplus. They give him credit for eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare, despite being forced to deal with a Republican-controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-plagued presidency because it was the result of other factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial crisis that began in 2007. They point to his impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass universal health care coverage as further evidence that he was not a good president. Read more background…
|
# Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?'
**Argument**
Standardized tests only determine which students are good at taking tests, offer no meaningful measure of progress, and have not improved student performance.
Standardized test scores are easily influenced by outside factors: stress, hunger, tiredness, and prior teacher or parent comments about the difficulty of the test, among other factors. In short, the tests only show which students are best at preparing for and taking the tests, not what knowledge students might exhibit if their stomachs weren’t empty. External stereotypes also play a part in scores: “research indicates that being targeted by well-known stereotypes (‘blacks are unintelligent,’ ‘Latinos perform poorly on tests,’ ‘girls can’t do math’ and so on) can be threatening to students in profound ways, a predicament they call ‘stereotype threat.'”
Students are tested on grade-appropriate material, but they are not re-tested to determine if they have learned information they tested poorly on the year before. Instead, as Steve Martinez, EdD, Superintendent of Twin Rivers Unified in California, and Rick Miller, Executive Director of CORE Districts, note, each “state currently reports yearly change, by comparing the scores of this year’s students against the scores of last year’s students who were in the same grade. Even though educators, parents and policymakers might think change signals impact, it says much more about the change in who the students are because it is not measuring the growth of the same student from one year to the next.”
Further, because each state develops its own tests, standardized tests are not necessarily comparable across state lines, leaving nationwide statistics shaky at best.
Brandon Busteed, Executive Director, Education & Workforce Development at the time of the quote, stated, “Despite an increased focus on standardized testing, U.S. results in international comparisons show we have made no significant improvement over the past 20 years, according to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The U.S. most recently ranked 23rd, 39th and 25th in reading, math and science, respectively. The last time Americans celebrated being 23rd, 39th and 25th in anything was … well, never. Our focus on standardized testing hasn’t helped us improve our results!”
Busteed asks, “What if our overreliance on standardized testing has actually inhibited our ability to help students succeed and achieve in a multitude of other dimensions? For example, how effective are schools at identifying and educating students with high entrepreneurial talent? Or at training students to apply creative thinking to solve messy and complex issues with no easy answers?”
**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…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College graduates are more productive as members of society.
Henry Bienan, PhD, President Emeritus of Northwestern University, argues that a college education results in “greater productivity, lower crime, better health, [and] better citizenship for more educated people.” A 2009 study found 16 to 24 year old high school drop-outs were 63% more likely to be incarcerated than those with a bachelor’s degree or higher. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from Sep. 2008 to Sep. 2009, 43% of college graduates did volunteer work compared to 19% of high school graduates and 27% of adults in general. In 2005, college graduates were more like to have donated blood in the past year (9%) than people with some college (6%), high school graduates (4%), and people who did not complete high school (2%).
**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…
|
# Defunding the Police Pros and Cons | Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Police are not trained and were not intended to do many of the jobs they perform. Defunding the police allows experts to step in.
Police currently deal with calls about mental illness, homelessness, domestic disputes, barking dogs, neighbors playing loud music, and various non-criminal activities, on top of actual violations of the law ranging from minor shoplifting by kids to speeding to murder.
In a 2016 interview, former Dallas Police Chief David Brown stated, “We’re just asking us to do too much. Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.”
Alicia Garza, Co-Founder of Black Lives Matter, stated, “So much of policing right now is generated and directed towards quality-of-life issues, homelessness, drug addiction, domestic violence. What we do need is increased funding for housing, we need increased funding for education, we need increased funding for quality of life of communities who are over-policed and over-surveilled.”
The people who respond to community issues should be those best equipped to deal with the concern, whether that is a social worker attending a mental health crisis, an EMT arriving at a domestic dispute, or a housing facilitator helping an unhoused person.
Greg Casar, Austin, Texas, City Council Member, stated, “We should be treating homelessness not with policing, but with housing. We should be treating addiction not with policing, but with treatment. We have dedicated so many of our public dollars simply to policing, and that hasn’t made us actually more safe.”
Further, defunding the police allows more money to go to community programs that prevent the need for police. Patrick Sharkey, Professor at Princeton University, notes, “When neighborhood organizations engage young people with well-run after-school activities and summer jobs programs, those young people are dramatically less likely to become involved in violent activities. When street outreach workers intervene, they can be extremely effective in interrupting conflicts before they escalate. When local organizations reclaim abandoned lots and turn them into green spaces, violence falls. When community nonprofits proliferate across a city, that city becomes safer.”
He adds, “If we ask community organizations and leaders to take over primary responsibility for creating a safe community, they should be given equivalent resources.” Defunding the police would free up budget funds to appropriately pay community organizations.
Annie Lowrey, staff writer for The Atlantic, explains, “A more radical option … would mean ending mass incarceration, cash bail, fines-and-fees policing, the war on drugs, and police militarization, as well as getting cops out of schools. It would also mean funding housing-first programs, creating subsidized jobs for the formerly incarcerated, and expanding initiatives to have mental-health professionals and social workers respond to emergency calls.”
For a World without Police, an abolitionist group, states, “Police violence stems not just from bad apples or bad attitudes, but from what police must be and do in America. The only way to stop the violence is to abolish the police, and transform the conditions that gave rise to them.”
**Background**
Amid the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, calls to “defund the police” began to populate protest signs and social media posts.
While there are multiple interpretations of “defund the police,” the basic definition is to move funding away from police departments and into community resources such as mental health experts, housing, and social workers. In the larger scope of the civil rights movement, some advocates would reallocate some police funding but keep police departments, others would combine defunding with other police reforms such as body cameras and bias training, and others see defunding as a small step toward ultimately abolishing police departments and the prison system entirely. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
According to the most recent data available, police departments received about $114.5 billion nationwide in 2017 from state and local governments, up from $42.3 billion in 1977. Police budgets have made up around 4% of total state and local budgets since 1977. About 97% of police budgets go toward operational costs such as salaries and benefits. However, individual cities or counties may allocate more funds to police departments. The 2017 Los Angeles city budget, for example, provided 23% of the budget to police, while 9% of Los Angeles county’s budget went to policing. [7] [8] [9]
In June 2020, 64% of Americans opposed the abstract idea of defunding the police, while 34% supported the movement. 60% were against reallocating police budget funds to other public health and social programs, while 39% were in favor. [10]
In Oct. 2021, 21% of American adults wanted police budgets “increased a lot” and 26% wanted budgets “increased a little,” while 9% wanted police budgets “decreased a little” and 6% “decreased a lot.” 37% said budgets should “stay about the same.” [58]
|
# Kneeling during the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Kneeling during the national anthem angers many and sows division in our country.
Kaepernick and others who have refused to stand for the national anthem have caused division among their teams, their fans, and across the country. The Santa Clara police union hinted they would boycott providing security at games after Kaepernick revealed his reasons for protesting the national anthem and wore socks depicting pigs in police uniforms.
Fans have been burning Kaepernick’s jersey to show their distaste for his actions. One video of a jersey on fire posted on Facebook was captioned, “He says he’s oppressed making $126 million. Well, Colin, here’s my salute to you.”
**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?“
|
# Is Binge Watching Bad for You? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Binge-watching establishes beneficial social connections.
The act of bingeing content fosters a sense of community around a show, something experts call a “shared cultural space.” This common ground allows viewers to discuss and enjoy the show with everyone from a coworker to the stranger in line at the grocery store. This shared space makes it easier to relate to other people and share personal perspectives.
Romantic relationships can also be strengthened by binge-watching together because it serves as a fun activity that creates a shared interest and offers an easy way to spend time together. Licensed professional counselorHeidi McBain said that “if both people are partaking without distractions, laughing together, holding hands… quality time is being fostered.”
A study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships found that binge-watching can help long-distance relationships by replacing shared activities such as going to dinner together and having mutual friends.
**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]
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms emphasize the socio-economic divisions they are supposed to eliminate.
Most public schools with uniform policies are in poor neighborhoods (47% of high-poverty public schools required school uniforms vs. 6% of low poverty schools), emphasizing the class distinctions that uniforms were supposed to eliminate. Even within one school, uniforms cannot conceal the differences between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” David L. Brunsma, PhD, stated that “more affluent families buy more uniforms per child. The less affluent… they have one… It’s more likely to be tattered, torn and faded. It only takes two months for socioeconomic differences to show up again.”
Uniforms also emphasize racial divisions. Schools with a minority student population of 50% or more are four times as likely to require uniforms than schools with a minority population of 20-49%, and 24 times more likely than schools with minority populations of 5%-19%.
**Background**
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).
Proponents say that school uniforms make schools safer for students, create a “level playing field” that reduces socioeconomic disparities, and encourage children to focus on their studies rather than their clothes.
Opponents say school uniforms infringe upon students’ right to express their individuality, have no positive effect on behavior and academic achievement, and emphasize the socioeconomic disparities they are intended to disguise. Read more background…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms prevent the display of gang colors and insignia.
The US Department of Education’s Manual on School Uniforms stated that uniform policies can “prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school” in order to “encourage a safe environment.” Educators in the Long Beach Unified School District have speculated that the sharp reduction in crime following the introduction of school uniforms was a result of gang conflicts being curbed. Osceola County, FL School Board member Jay Wheeler reported that the county’s schools had a 46% drop in gang activity after their first full school year with a mandatory K-12 uniform policy. Wheeler stated that “clothing is integral to gang culture… Imagine a U.S. Armed Forces recruiter out of uniform trying to recruit new soldiers; the success rate goes down. The same applies to gang recruitment.”
**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**
The average battery life of a tablet is 7.26 hours, shorter than the length of a school day.
Tablets constantly need charging, increasing electricity demands on schools and the need for new electrical outlets.
**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…
|
# Universal Basic Income Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Universal Basic Income (UBI) takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of much needed targeted support.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of much needed targeted support.
People experiencing poverty face a variety of hardships that are addressed with existing anti-poverty measures such as food stamps, medical aid, and child assistance programs. UBI programs often use funds from these targeted programs for distribution to everyone in society.
According to Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “[i]f you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.”
Luke Martinelli, PhD, Research Associate at the University of Bath, created three models of UBI implementation and concluded that all three would lead to a significant number of individuals and households who are worse off. He noted that “these losses are not concentrated among richer groups; on the contrary, they are proportionally larger for the bottom three income quintiles.”
Research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Finland, France, Italy, and the UK concluded that “rather than reducing the overall headcount of those in poverty, a BI [basic income] would change the composition of the income-poor population” and thus “would not prove to be an effective tool for reducing poverty.”
UBIs are also less cost-effective than targeted welfare programs because many people lack more than just cash. UBI does not cure addiction, poor health, lack of skills, or other factors that contribute to and exacerbate poverty.
Anna Coote, Principal Fellow at the New Economics Foundation, and Edanur Yazici, PhD student, explain that there is “ the danger of UBI entrenching low pay and precarious work. It could effectively subsidise employers who pay low wages and – by creating a small cushion for workers on short-term and zero-hours contracts – help to normalise precarity.” UBI could become like another American tipping system in which employers pay low wages and count on customers to fill in the gap with tips.
**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]
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Education:
In his two terms in office, Reagan slashed federal aid to schools by more than $1 billion, and he cut the Department of Education budget by 19%. One of Reagan’s campaign promises was to abolish the Department of Education, which he considered a “bureaucratic boondoggle.” After intermittent attempts to fulfill this promise, he gave up in 1983 due to lack of Congressional support.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Many students do not graduate and waste their own and their government’s money.
About 19% of students who enroll in college do not return for the second year. Students who drop out during the first year of college cost states $1.3 billion and the federal government $300 million per year in wasted student grant programs and government appropriations for colleges. Overall, 41% of students at four-year colleges and universities did not graduate within six years: 41% at public schools, 34% at private non-profits, and 77% at private for-profits. Students who did not graduate within six years accounted for $3.8 billion in lost income, $566 million in lost federal income taxes, and $164 million in lost state income taxes in one year.
**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**
Social media users are vulnerable to security attacks such as hacking, identity theft, and viruses.
Social media sites do not scan messages for viruses or phishing scams, leading to large-scale problems like the virus Steckt.Evl spread from Facebook’s chat window. 68% of social media users share their birth date publicly, 63% share their high school name, 18% share their phone number, 12% share a pet’s name; each of those pieces of information is frequently used for account security verification and can be used for identity theft.
**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…
|
# CBD for Pets - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
A majority of veterinarians agree that CBD helps animals.
A Veterinary Information Network survey found that 79% of vets with clinical experience using cannabis products said CBD was somewhat or very helpful for chronic pain in animals; over 62% said it was helpful for managing anxiety. Over 80% of those vets said there were no reports of adverse effects aside from sedation.
A study published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science found that 82.2% of veterinarians agreed or strongly agreed that there are medicinal uses of CBD products for dogs from a medical standpoint.
Jeffrey Judkins, DVM, holistic veterinarian at Animalkind Veterinarian Clinic, said that CBD is “100% non-toxic. You can’t overdose on CBD. It might make pets sleepy, but there’s no toxicity.” Judkins reported success in using CBD to alleviate pain and anxiety in animals, stating, “Recently I was able to significantly reduce the amount of a narcotic pain drug a dog was being given (with adverse side effects) by substituting a cannabis product.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
When people talk about giving marijuana to pets, they are really talking about the use of CBD products derived from hemp. The California Veterinary Medical Board explains that CBD is the “abbreviation for cannabidiol, which is one out of 60 naturally occurring compounds present in cannabis. It is the second-most prevalent cannabinoid in both hemp and marijuana and is nonpsychoactive.” CBD extracted from hemp contains less than 0.3% THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the compound in marijuana that causes the high. [1]
THC is toxic for cats and dogs even in small amounts. The ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center reported a 765% increase in calls regarding animals ingesting marijuana from 2018 to 2019.[27]
In 2020, pet owners spent about $99 billion on their furry friends, a growth of 12 times over 2019 as more people worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The market for CBD products aimed at companion animals jumped from $32 million in 2018 to $400 million in 2019. During the pandemic, in 2020 sales rose to $426 million and are expected to jump to $629 million in 2021.[2] [3] [34] [35]
A survey found that 11% of dog owners and 8% of cat owners gave CBD to their pets in 2019, often in the form of pet treats, tinctures administered under the tongue, and salves or creams applied topically. Reasons cited for giving CBD to companion animals included caring for aging pets and treating conditions such as anxiety, pain, and seizures. [7] [8] [9] [10]
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Sea levels have been steadily rising for thousands of years, and the increase has nothing to do with humans.
A report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that a slow global sea level rise has been ongoing for the last 10,000 years. When the earth began coming out of the Pleistocene Ice Age 18,000 years ago, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today and have been steadily rising ever since.
According to Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD, “it is clear that natural variability has dominated sea level rise during the 20th century, with changes in ocean heat content and changes in precipitation patterns.”
**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…
|
# Net Neutrality - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Net neutrality regulations are unnecessary because the internet developed amazingly well in their absence.
Most large internet companies including Google (1998), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and Twitter (2006) were started and grew to success without net neutrality regulations.
According to former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, JD, “the internet wasn’t broken in 2015,” when net neutrality was implemented and “it certainly wasn’t heavy-handed government regulation” that was responsible for the “phenomenal development of the internet.”
As former FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly stated, “periods without net neutrality rules were times of innovation and investment.”
According to economist John W. Mayo, PhD, the entire rationale for net neutrality ignores the “positive economic outcomes in the provision of internet services that resulted from twenty years of light-touch regulation.”
As economist Gerald R. Faulhaber, PhD, argued: “we have had a decade of experience with broadband ISPs with little evidence of wrongdoing.”
A 2017 statement from the Internet & Television Association, signed by 21 large ISPs, stated they remain “committed to an open internet” and “will not block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity,” once net neutrality regulations are removed.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The net neutrality rules adopted in 2015 under the Obama administration regulated the internet as a common carrier, the same category as telephone service, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, slowing, prioritizing, or charging consumers extra money to access certain websites. For example, under net neutrality rules, Verizon could not speed up access to websites it owns, such as Yahoo and AOL, and could not slow down traffic, or charge extra fees, to other major websites like Google or YouTube. [5] [4]
On Dec. 14, 2017, under the Trump administration, the FCC voted (3-2) to overturn those net neutrality rules and reclassified internet service as an information source, rather than a common carrier. [1] [5]
Many state attorneys general filed suit against the FCC decision. The US Senate voted 52-47 to approve a resolution to invalidate the decision, however the legislation fell short by 46 votes in the US House of Representatives. The FCC’s removal of net neutrality rules was officially implemented on June 11, 2018. [6] [25] [26] [34]
In Sep. 2018, California passed a net neutrality law and was immediately sued by the Trump Administration Justice Department. On Feb. 8, 2021, the Biden administration Justice Department withdrew the lawsuit against California, and FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel indicated support for reinstating net neutrality rules. [35] [36]
According to the National Law Review, as of Mar. 1, 2021, “seven states have adopted net neutrality laws (California, Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington), and several other states have introduced some form of net neutrality legislation in the 2021 legislative session (among them Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, and South Carolina).” [37]
Should the US Have Net Neutrality Laws?
Pro 1
Net neutrality preserves free speech on the internet by prohibiting internet service providers from blocking content.
ISPs may slow or block websites that disagree with the companies’ political viewpoints or interfere with their monetary interests. [2][7]
In 2017, then FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, JD, stated that the removal of net neutrality rules will give ISPs “extraordinary new power” and allow them “to censor online content.” [8]
According to the 2014 D.C. Circuit court ruling, Verizon v. FCC, the power of ISPs to censor content is not “merely theoretical.” Before net neutrality was in place, instances of content censorship actually occurred, including two separate instances of broadband ISPs blocking access to voice over IP applications, and one instance of an ISP blocking an online payment service. [15]
In 2014, President Obama stated that “an open Internet… has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known,” and that if content is legal your ISP should not be allowed to block it. [33]
The Electronic Freedom Foundation has argued that, “the meaningful exercise of our constitutional rights—including the freedoms of speech, assembly, and press—has become dependent on broadband Internet access.” This dependency makes net neutrality rules essential for a free society. [16]
Read More
Pro 2
Net neutrality protects consumers by preventing ISPs from speeding, slowing, or charging higher fees for select online content.
Allowing ISPs to speed or slow certain websites, or charge fees for fast lane access, may eventually trickle down to consumers in the form of higher internet costs. For example, a person who gets their internet service from Comcast could be charged extra fees to stream Netflix or Amazon (companies not owned by Comcast), while not being charged extra to stream NBC or Hulu (two companies that Comcast partially owns). [21]
According to US Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA), without net neutrality, ISPs could “cabel-ize” the internet, meaning that “instead of paying a flat price for access to use any app or service free of charge, companies could start bundling services into ‘social,’ ‘video,’ and so on,” and consumers will have to pay for it. [23]
On Apr. 27, 2017, one day after then FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, JD, announced the plan to eliminate net neutrality, Comcast (the largest US ISP) removed its pledge to not “prioritize internet traffic or create paid fast lanes” from its corporate website. [20][11]
Read More
Pro 3
Net neutrality promotes competition by providing a level playing field for new companies.
According to former Internet Association President & CEO Michael Beckerman, “without net neutrality protections, startups would face discrimination from ISP owned or preferred content that’s granted a speed advantage through paid prioritization,” thus hurting competition and consumer choice. [18][29]
When the FCC implemented net neutrality rules in 2015, it warned “that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary” to “degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t like.” [27]
According to Ryan Singel, Fellow at the the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, without net neutrality “broadband providers will be allowed to charge all websites and services, including startups, simply to reach an ISP’s subscribers. That’s a huge threat to the low cost of starting a company, and it totally up-ends the economics of the internet.” [17]
A group of over 1,000 startup companies, innovators, and investors signed a petition to the FCC stating that “the success of America’s startup ecosystem depends… on an open Internet—including enforceable net neutrality rules.” [19] Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai, MBA, said net neutrality principles must be protected “for the next set of entrepreneurs, building their services and trying to reach users.” [24]
Read More
Con 1
Net neutrality regulations are unnecessary because the internet developed amazingly well in their absence.
Most large internet companies including Google (1998), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and Twitter (2006) were started and grew to success without net neutrality regulations.
According to former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, JD, “the internet wasn’t broken in 2015,” when net neutrality was implemented and “it certainly wasn’t heavy-handed government regulation” that was responsible for the “phenomenal development of the internet.” [9]
As former FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly stated, “periods without net neutrality rules were times of innovation and investment.” [12]
According to economist John W. Mayo, PhD, the entire rationale for net neutrality ignores the “positive economic outcomes in the provision of internet services that resulted from twenty years of light-touch regulation.” [32]
As economist Gerald R. Faulhaber, PhD, argued: “we have had a decade of experience with broadband ISPs with little evidence of wrongdoing.” [3]
A 2017 statement from the Internet & Television Association, signed by 21 large ISPs, stated they remain “committed to an open internet” and “will not block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity,” once net neutrality regulations are removed. [14]
Read More
Con 2
Net neutrality created burdensome and overreaching regulations to govern the internet.
According to the bipartisan Telecommunications Act of 1996, “the Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation,” and it should be the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market… for the Internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” [32]
In 2017, the FCC reported that neutrality rules imposed significant and “unnecessary” reporting burdens on ISPs to prove they were in compliance. For example, the ISP CenturyLink estimated that meeting the net neutrality rules created over 5,000 hours of extra paperwork, costing over $134,000 each year. [10]
In addition to being burdensome for ISPs, net neutrality regulations exceed the FCC’s authority. According to the editors of the National Review, the net neutrality rules exceeded “the agency’s statutory mandate,” and “there is no title or provision in the Federal Communication Act that gives the agency a clear mandate to impose pricing and content-management rules on Internet providers, which is what net neutrality does.” [31]
Read More
Con 3
Net neutrality reduces investment in internet services resulting in less access and higher costs for consumers.
Between 2011 and 2015, when neutrality rules were being debated by the FCC, the mere threat of implementing them reduced ISPs investments in network upgrades by 20-30%, a $150-$200 billion reduction in investment. [13]
During the years that net neutrality rules were in place (2015-2017), investment in broadband fell for the first time ever in a non-recession period. [10][28]
According to AT&T, that “chilled investment in broadband,” threatened “to slow the delivery of broadband services to all Americans… particularly in rural America where broadband investment is needed the most.” [30]
Net neutrality regulations also prevent ISPs from charging large content companies (such as video streaming services) additional fees to cover the costs of the massive bandwidth they use. Preventing such paid prioritization fees places the costs of building the additional capacity necessary to carry the content onto ISPs, and these costs will trickle down to consumers in the form of more expensive internet packages – which are paid by all, even those who don’t use the streaming services. [22]
Read More
Discussion Questions
1. Should the United States have federal net neutrality laws? Why or why not?
2. Do net neutrality regulations protect consumers? Explain your answer(s).
3. Do net neutrality regulations unfairly limit internet companies?
Take Action
1. Explore Kevin Taglang’s position that the internet needs net neutrality protections.
2. Consider which states have enacted (or considered enacting) net neutrality legislation according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
3. Analyze Ken Engelhart’s position that net neutrality laws are not needed because the internet is “inherently neutral.”
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Acts to Restore Internet Freedom,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
2.American Civil Liberties Union, “What Is Net Neutrality?,” aclu.org, Dec. 2017
3.Gerald R. Faulhaber, “Economics of Net Neutrality: A Review,” Communications & Convergence Review, 2011
4.Brian Fung, “The FCC Just Voted to Repeal Its Net Neutrality Rules, in a Sweeping Act of Deregulation,” washingtonpost.com, Dec. 14, 2017
5.Steve Lohr, “Net Neutrality Repeal: What Could Happen and How It Could Affect You,” nytimes.com, Nov. 21, 2017
6.David Shepardson, “21 States Sue to Keep Net Neutrality as Senate Democrats Reach 50 Votes,” reuters.com, Jan. 16, 2018
7.Roni Jacobson, “Internet Censorship Is Advancing under Trump,” wired.com, Apr. 12, 2017
8.Jessica Rosenworcel, “Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
9.Ajit Pai, “Oral Statement of Chairman Ajit Pai,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
10.Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Fact Sheet: Restoring Internet Freedom Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order – WC Docket No. 17-108,” apps.fcc.gov, Nov. 2, 2017
11.Jon Brodkin, “Comcast Deleted Net Neutrality Pledge Same Day FCC Announced Repeal,” arstechnica.com, Nov. 29, 2017
12.Michael O’Rielly, “Oral Statement of Commissioner Michael O’Reilly,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
13.George S. Ford, “Net Neutrality, Reclassification and Investment: A Counterfactual Analysis,” Perspectives, Apr. 25, 2017
14.NCTA, “Reaffirming Our Commitment to an Open Internet,” ncta.com, May 17, 2017
15.Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, cadc.uscorts.gov, Jan. 14, 2014
16.Electronic Freedom Foundation, “Comments of the Electronic Freedom Foundation on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” eff.org, July 17, 2017
17.Ryan Singel, “Expect Fewer Great Startups if the FCC Kills Net Neutrality,” wired.com, Dec. 12, 2017
18.Internet Association, “Internet Association Files With FCC and Calls For Net Neutrality Rules to Be Kept in Place,” internetassociation.org, July 17, 2017
19.Startups for Net Neutrality, Letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, engine.is, Apr. 26, 2017
20.Ajit Pai, “Remarks of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai at the Newseum: The Future of Internet Freedom,” fcc.gov, Apr. 26, 2017
21.Steve Kovach, “The FCC Plans to Repeal Net Neutrality This Week – and It Could Ruin the Internet,” businessinsider.com, Dec. 10, 2017
22.Jim Cicconi, “Who Should Pay for Netflix?,” attpublicpolicy.com, Mar. 21, 2014
23.Anna G. Eshoo, “Net Neutrality Repeal Means You’re Going to Hate Your Cable Company Even More,” usatoday.com, Dec. 12, 2017
24.Jordan Malter, “Google CEO: Net Neutrality ‘A Principle We All Need to Fight For,'” money.cnn.com, Jan. 24, 2018
25.Bill Chappell and Susan Davis, “Senate Approves Overturning FCC’s Net Neutrality Repeal,” npr.org, May 16, 2018
26.Erin Carson and Marguerite Reardon, “Net Neutrality Rules Will End June 11th with the FCC’s Final Say-So,” cnet.com, May 10, 2018
27.Federal Communications Commission, “Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order,” transition.fcc.gov, Mar. 12, 2015
28.Hal Singer, “Bad Bet by FCC Sparks Capital Flight from Broadband,” forbes.com, Mar. 2, 2017
29.Internet Association, “Principles to Preserve & Protect an Open Internet,” internetassociation.org (accessed May 23, 2018)
30.AT&T, “Open Internet,” about.att.com (accessed May 10, 2018)
31.National Review, “Net Neutrality: Let Congress Decide if It’s Needed,” nationalreview.com, Nov. 11, 2017
32.John W. Mayo, et al., “An Economic Perspective of Title II Regulation of the Internet,” cbpp.georgetown.edu, July 2017
33.The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on Net Neutrality,” obamawhitehouse.archives.gov, Nov. 10, 2014
34.Jon Brodkin, "Bill to Save Net NeutralityIis 46 Votes Short in US House," arstechnica.com, June 27, 2018
35.Cecilia Kang, "Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law," nytimes.com, Sep. 30, 2018
36.Federal Communications Commission, "Statement of Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel on Department of Justice Decision to Withdraw Lawsuit to Block California Net Neutrality Law," docs.fcc.gov, Feb. 8, 2021
37.National Law Review, "State Net Neutrality Laws May Lead to Federal Legislation," natlawreview.com, Mar. 1, 2021
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?'
**Argument**
Alcohol consumption before age 21 is irresponsible and dangerous.
Alcohol consumption can interfere with development of the young adult brain’s frontal lobes (essential for emotional regulation, planning, and organization) which can increase the risk for chronic problems such as vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide.
MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities. 100 of the 102 analyses (98%) in a meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. [19] In the 30 years since MLDA 21 was introduced, drunk driving fatalities decreased by a third. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that MLDA 21 has saved 31,417 lives from 1975-2016. Lowering the MLDA would surely increase traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths.
A 2019 study of alchol consumption in India found “a causal channel between alcohol consumption and domestic violence,” in that men who were legally allowed to drink were “substantially more likely to consume alcohol” and “significantly more likely to commit violence against their partners.” Lowering the MLDA is likely to raise domestic abuse rates.
**Background**
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased. Read more background…
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.
According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases. As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the “gun show loophole”). 53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists. 77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun. Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, “As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns.”
**Background**
The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.
Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Marijuana legalization boosts the economy.
The marijuana industry (adult-use and medical) in the United States could exceed $24 billion in revenue by 2025. For every $1.00 spent in the marijuana industry, between $2.13 and $2.40 in economic activity is generated. Tourism, banking, food, real estate, construction, and transportation are a few of the industries that benefit from legal marijuana.
The legal marijuana industry generated $7.2 billion in economic activity in 2016, and added millions of dollars in federal taxes paid by cannabis businesses. One study on adult-use marijuana in Nevada projected $7.5 billion in economic activity over the first seven years of legalization, including $1.7 billion in labor income. A study by the University of California Agricultural Issues Center estimated that the legal marijuana market in California could generate $5 billion annually.
In Colorado, marijuana brings in three times more tax revenue than alcohol. The state raised $78 million in the first fiscal year after starting retail sales, and $129 million the second fiscal year. Washington collected a total of $220 million in tax revenues in its second fiscal year of sales.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Is Cell Phone Radiation Safe?'
**Argument**
Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR).
In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufacturs of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines.
**Background**
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Obesity meets the definition of disease.
The American Medical Association’s 2013 “Council on Science and Public Health Report” identified three criteria to define disease: 1. “an impairment of the normal functioning of some aspect of the body;” 2. “characteristic signs and symptoms;” and 3. “harm or morbidity.” Obesity causes impairment, has characteristic signs and symptoms, and increases harm and morbidity. Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, Director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness and Preventative Medicine Physician at Johns Hopkins University, stated obesity “satisfies all the definitions and criteria of what a disease and medical condition is… The one difference is that people who have obesity have to wear their disease on the outside.”
**Background**
The United States is the second most obese industrialized country in the world. 39.6% of American adults in 2016 were obese, compared to 14% in the mid-1970s. Obesity accounts for 19.8% of deaths and 21% of healthcare spending in the United States.
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it meets the definition of disease; it decreases life expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease because it is a preventable risk factor for other diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is caused by exercising too little. Read more background…
|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Student loan debt is slowing the national economy. Forgiveness would boost the economy, benefiting everyone.
Student loan debt slows new business growth and quashes consumer spending. A Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia study found “a significant and economically meaningful negative correlation” between student loan debt and the falling rate of new small businesses. Such debt can make getting a business (or any other) loan difficult, so people with student loan debt are less likely to be able to open businesses. And the effects snowball from there: fewer small businesses means fewer jobs and less economic output and consumer spending, which in turn means lower national income and slow economic growth for the country.
As William Foster, Vice President Senior Credit Officer, explained, “U.S. real GDP could be boosted on average by $86 billion to $108 billion per year, [which is] quite a bit… That’s if you had total loan forgiveness.” Though Foster stated total forgiveness isn’t necessary to see a positive impact.
President Joe Biden, when announcing his loan cancellation program, stated, “I ran for office to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out because when we do that, everyone does better, everybody does well. The wealthy do very well, the poor have a way up, and the middle class can have breathing room. And that’s going to help America win the economic competition of the 21st century…. That’s what today’s announcement is about. It’s about opportunity. It’s about giving people a fair shot. It’s about the one word America can be defined by: possibilities. It’s all about providing possibilities.”
When everyone can’t participate in the economy, the whole economy suffers.
**Background**
Student loan debt is frequently in the news as politicians debate solutions to the rising costs of college that lead to sometimes crippling amounts of debt. For those with outstanding student loans, such debt can be discharged in two ways: forgiveness and bankruptcy.
Americans owed a collective $1.71 trillion in student loan debt as of Dec. 2020, according to the Federal Reserve. By comparison, in Dec. 2010, Americans owed about $845 billion in student loan debt, which means student loan debt has increased by about 102% over the last ten years. [1] [2]
According to the US Department of Education, 42.9 million Americans held outstanding student loan debt at the end of 2020, or about 17% of the US adult population. 75% of students with school-loan debt went to 2- or 4-year colleges, and the remaining 25% also borrowed for graduate school. About 6% of people with school loan debt owe more than $100,000–this group accounts for about a third of all outstanding student loan debt and usually encompasses both college as well as graduate school expenses. Approximately 40% leave college with between $20,000 and $100,000 in outstanding student loans. About 25% leave college with less than $20,000 in debt, and 30% leave with no student loan debt. [3] [4]
The New York Federal Reserve reported that about 11% of student loan debt payments were either late or in default (270 or more days late) at the beginning of 2020. By all indications, this debt, and the late payments and defaults as well, will continue to rise as college costs outpace average incomes. [5] [6] [7]
By Nov. 2021, the Education Data Initiative estimated 43.2 million student borrowers owed an average of $39,351 each. [40]
Some have proposed that the US federal government forgive some or all existing student loan debt in order to relieve the financial pressure on individuals and the country. Student debt forgiveness proposals range from a discharge of $10,000 per borrower (which would forgive the entire debt bills held by about 15 million borrowers) to $50,000 per borrower (which would forgive the entire debt bills held by about 36 million borrowers) to plans that would forgive all outstanding student loan debt. Each plan would include forgiveness for those with late or in-default accounts, as well as partial debt forgiveness for many more borrowers. [8]
The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimated that, depending on details, over ten years college debt cancellation will cost between $300 billion for a one-time cancellation of $10,000 for borrowers earning under $125,000 per year and $980 billion for a one-time cancellation of $50,000 per borrower. [43]
Others have proposed making student loan debt easier to discharge through bankruptcy. Credit card debt, medical bills, auto loans, and even gambling debt can be canceled by declaring bankruptcy, but due to a 1976 federal law, discharging student loan debt is much more difficult. Private student loans have also been protected from discharge in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. According to the US Department of Education, people who declare Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy can have student loan debt canceled but only if a court finds there is evidence of “undue hardship.” Getting student loans discharged is so difficult and rare, however, that many lawyers advise clients not to try: less than 0.5% of students clear their debts through bankruptcy. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
In Mar. 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump paused federal student loan payments, interest accrual, and debt collection. Congress voted to keep the pause through Sep. 30, 2021, and Trump extended it again through January 2021. President Biden maintained the pause with several renewals after taking office. His latest freeze, announced on Apr. 6, 2022, will expire on Aug. 31, 2022. While some disagree with the continuation of payment, interest and collection pauses, others question why federal student loan debt can’t be canceled if the federal government can do without payments for almost three years. [41]
On Aug. 24, 2022, President Biden announced a short loan freeze through Dec. 31, 2022 as well as a cancellation of “up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, and up to $10,000 for other qualifying borrowers.” The White House stated about 43 million borrowers would qualify the cancellation, with 20 million borrowers qualifying to have their debt completely canceled. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimated that the debt cancellation portion of Biden’s Aug. 2022 plan will cost up to $519 billion, with other components, such as income-based repayment plans adding additional costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the plan will cost $400 billion over 30 years. [42] [44] [47]
|
# Is Golf a Sport?'
**Argument**
Golf meets the definition of sport by requiring skill to play.
Golf requires coordinated muscle use. The golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs according to a study in the BMJ (British Medical Journal). Playing golf on a professional level requires athletic ability to walk long distances (4-5 miles per 18-hole course) and hit long drives with consistent depth and aim.
Plus, physical training leads to improvement in golfer’s performance. In golf, like in other sports, there is a correlation between physical training and improved performance. A 2009 peer-reviewed study found that golfers who focus on balance, flexibility, posture, core stability, strength, power, and cardiovascular training have better results.
Rory McIlroy, World No.1 for 95 weeks (2012-2015), credits his training regimen with helping him reach the top spot. Tiger Woods has reportedly bench pressed as much as 315 pounds.
Golf Educate summarized, “Golf is rated as one of the most difficult sports to play well, and while there are millions of golfers in the US, only 3% of them play at very high skill levels of scratch or better, and only 10% of golfers break 80 regularly. There’s no denying it; golf is hard.”
**Background**
Golf in the United States is a $70 billion annual industry with 24.1 million players. A 2016 poll by Public Policy Polling found that nineteen percent of Americans call themselves golf fans, down from twenty-three percent in 2015. The debate over whether golf is a sport rages on the internet, in bars, amongst sportswriters, and even on the golf course. Read more background…
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
The current Social Security program will become insolvent by 2035, so a better system is urgently required.
Due to an aging population and lower birthrate, the ratio of workers to retirees has been shrinking, thereby reducing the funds available for future retirees.
In 1940, the payroll tax contributions of 159 workers paid for the benefits of one recipient. In 2013 the estimated ratio was 2.8 workers to each recipient.
Since 2010, Social Security has been paying out more in benefits than it receives in worker contributions. The 2020 Social Security Board of Trustees report indicated that, if no further action is taken, the program will be insolvent by 2035 when the US government will be able to pay about three quarters of benefits.
Using the existing system to avert the pending collapse of Social Security would require deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. A better solution is to switch to private retirement accounts that would be funded with existing payroll taxes. The CATO Institute’s Project on Social Security stated that moving to personal retirement accounts can “reduce Social Security’s debt and bring the system back into solvency.”
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
The right to health care is an internationally recognized human right.
On Dec. 10, 1948 the United States and 47 other nations signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The document stated that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including… medical care.” In 2005 the United States and the other member states of the World Health Organization signed World Health Assembly resolution 58.33, which stated that everyone should have access to health care services and should not suffer financial hardship when obtaining these services. According to a peer-reviewed study in the Lancet, “[r]ight-to-health features are not just good management, justice, or humanitarianism, they are obligations under human-rights law.” The United States is the only OECD nation which does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right. According to the Comparative Constitutions Project, as of 2019, over 130 countries have a right to health care in their national constitutions.
**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…
|
# Immigrant Sanctuary Cities - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Sanctuary cities protect undocumented immigrants against federal immigration laws.
Many people believe that the federal immigration deportation policies are unjust because they target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately, deport people who have lived in the United States since childhood, deport people who have committed no crimes, separate families, and cause people to live in constant fear of deportation and its devastating consequences.
Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, California, said, “I like to compare this to conscientious objector status. We are not going to use our resources to enforce what we believe are unjust immigration laws.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While there is no official legal definition of “sanctuary city,” the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants, often with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. [2]
Some argue that sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, New York, and Chicago should not receive federal funding because they are not enforcing federal immigration laws. Others say that sanctuary city policies protect both citizens and undocumented immigrants.
There are 11 states, 40 cites, and 143 counties listed as sanctuary jurisdictions by the Center for Immigration Studies as of Mar. 22, 2021. [32]
Florida banned sanctuary cities on June 14, 2019, joining at least 11 other states with similar rules, according to CNN. Representatives in other states have since pushed for sanctuary cities bans, including New Hampshire, Georgia, and Oklahoma. [22] [24] [25] [26]
Sanctuary cities grew from the Sanctuary Movement the late 1980s and early 1990s in which religious congregations began helping undocumented Salvadorian and Guatemalan families settle in the United States. They acted in direct defiance of US immigration authorities, who denied over 90% of asylum requests by immigrants fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. The sanctuary activists believed that the federal government was breaking international and domestic refugee law. [1] [2]
Los Angeles was the first city to enact sanctuary policies, with a focus on undocumented immigrants already in the United States. The chief of police enacted Special Order No. 40 on Nov. 27, 1979, stating that police officers should not inquire about immigration status and should provide city services to everyone equally. San Francisco followed suit, passing the “City of Refuge” resolution in 1985 and “City of Refuge” ordinance in 1989, requiring that all city employees stop immigration policing and provide city services to all residents regardless of immigration status. [2] [12] [29]
The Trump administration held that the federal government should be able to withhold funds from sanctuary cities for their non-compliance with federal laws. The Biden administration reversed that policy. [22] [27] [28] [30][31]
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
Students oppose school uniforms.
Enrollment at Washington High School in South Bend, IN, has declined 43% since the introduction of school uniforms in 2006; and a 2017 survey found that 82% of the current students opposed uniforms. A peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Nevada at Reno found that 90% of seventh and eighth grade public school students did not like wearing uniforms. In the year following the introduction of mandatory school uniforms to the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District, 81% of middle school students said uniforms did not reduce fights, 76% said they did not help them fit in at school, 69% said they did not make them feel more connected with the school community, and 71% said they felt no safer traveling to and from school.
**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 a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College exposes students to diverse people and ideas.
Students live, go to classes, and socialize with other students from around the world and learn from professors with a variety of expertise. The community of people on a college campus means students are likely to make diverse friends and business connections, and, potentially, find a spouse or mate. Access to a variety of people allows college students to learn about different cultures, religions, and personalities they may have not been exposed to in their home towns, which broadens their knowledge and perspective. 70.7% of college freshman in 2015 said they expected to socialize with someone of another racial or ethnic group while in college, while 59.1% said college would help improve their understanding of other countries and cultures.
**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…
|
# Space Colonization - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Humans living in space is pure science fiction.
Briony Horgan, PhD, Assistant Professor of Planetary Science at Purdue University, explained that terraforming Mars is “way beyond any kind of technology we’re going to have any time soon.”
In one widely promoted plan, Mars needs to first be warmed to closer to Earth’s average temperature (from -60 °C/-76 °F to 15 °C/59 °F), which will take approximately 100 years. Then the planet must be made to produce oxygen so humans and other mammals can breathe, which will take about 100,000 years or more. And those two steps can only be taken once Mars is thoroughly investigated for water, carbon dioxide, and nitrates.
A 2018 NASA study concluded that, based on the levels of CO2 found on Mars, the above plan is not feasible. Lead author Bruce Jakosky, PhD, Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, stated, “terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology.”
If a workable solution were found and implemented, a project of that magnitude would cost billions, perhaps trillions.
Billionaire Elon Musk explained that the SpaceX Mars colonization project would need one million people to pay $200,000 each just to move to and colonize Mars, which doesn’t include the costs incurred before humans left Earth. Returning to the Moon would have cost an estimated $104 billion in 2005 (about $133 billion in 2019 dollars), or almost 7 times NASA’s entire 2019 budget.
But, a person has yet to set foot on Mars, and no space station has been built on another planet or natural satellite.
Further, as Linda Billings, PhD, Research Professor at George Washington University, noted, “all life on Earth evolved to live in Earth conditions… If humans can’t figure out how to adapt to, or arrest, changing conditions on Earth – then I can’t see how humans could figure out how to adapt to a totally alien environment.”
**Background**
While humans have long thought of gods living in the sky, the idea of space travel or humans living in space dates to at least 1610 after the invention of the telescope when German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote to Italian astronomer Galileo: “Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travellers, maps of the celestial bodies.” [1]
In popular culture, space travel dates back to at least the mid-1600s when Cyrano de Bergerac first wrote of traveling to space in a rocket. Space fantasies flourished after Jules Verne’s “From Earth to the Moon” was published in 1865, and again when RKO Pictures released a film adaptation, A Trip to the Moon, in 1902. Dreams of space settlement hit a zenith in the 1950s with Walt Disney productions such as “Man and the Moon,” and science fiction novels including Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles (1950). [2] [3] [4]
Fueling popular imagination at the time was the American space race with Russia, amid which NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) was formed in the United States on July 29, 1958, when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law. After the Russians put the first person, Yuri Gagarin, in space on Apr. 12, 1961, NASA put the first people, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on the Moon in July 1969. What was science fiction began to look more like possibility. Over the next six decades, NASA would launch space stations, land rovers on Mars, and orbit Pluto and Jupiter, among other accomplishments. Launched by President Trump in 2017, NASA’s ongoing Artemis program intends to return humans to the Moon by 2024, landing the first woman on the lunar surface. The lunar launch is more likely to happen in 2025, due to a lag in space suit technology and delays with the Space Launch System rocket, the Orion capsule, and the lunar lander[5] [6] [7] [8] [36]
As of June 17, 2021, three countries had space programs with human space flight capabilities: China, Russia, and the United States. India’s planned human space flights have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they may launch in 2023. However, NASA ended its space shuttle program in 2011 when the shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 21. NASA astronauts going into space afterward rode along with Russians until 2020 when SpaceX took over and first launched NASA astronauts into space on Apr. 23, 2021. SpaceX is a commercial space travel business owned by Elon Musk that has ignited commercial space travel enthusiasm and the idea of “space tourism.” Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin have generated similar excitement. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Richard Branson launched himself, two pilots, and three mission specialists into space from New Mexico for a 90-minute flight on the Virgin Galactic Unity 22 mission on July 11, 2021. The flight marked the first time that passengers, rather than astronauts, went into space. [14] [15]
Jeff Bezos followed on July 20, 2021, accompanied by his brother, Mark, and both the oldest and youngest people to go to space: 82-year-old Wally Funk, a female pilot who tested with NASA in the 1960s but never flew, and Oliver Daemen, an 18-year-old student from the Netherlands. The fully automated, unpiloted Blue Origin New Shepard rocket launched on the 52nd anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing and was named after Alan Shepard, who was the first American to travel into space on May 5, 1961. [16] [17]
On Apr. 8, 2022, a SpaceX capsule launched, carrying three paying customers and a former NASA astronaut on a roundtrip to the International Space Station (ISS). Mission AX-1 docked at the ISS on Apr. 9 with former NASA astronaut, current Axiom Space employee, and mission commander, Michael Lopez-Alegría, Israeli businessman Eytan Stibbe, Canadian investor Mark Pathy, and American real estate magnate Larry Connor. The group returned to Earth on Apr. 25, 2022. While this is not the first time paying customers or non-astronauts have traveled to ISS (Russia has sold Soyuz seats), this is the first American mission and the first with no government astronaut corps members. [38] [39]
The International Space Station has been continuously occupied by groups of six astronauts since Nov. 2000, for a total of 243 astronauts from 19 countries as of May 13, 2021. Astronauts spend an average of 182 days (about six months) aboard the ISS. As of Feb. 2020, Russian Valery Polyakov had spent the longest continuous time in space (437.7 days in 1994-1995 on space station Mir), followed by Russian Sergei Avdeyev (379.6 days in 1998-1999 on Mir), Russians Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov (365 days in 1987-1988 on Mir), American Mark Vande Hei (355 days on ISS) Russian Mikhail Kornienko and American Scott Kelly (340.4 days in 2015-2016 on Mir and ISS respectively), and American Christina Koch (328 days in 2019-20 in ISS). [18] [19] [40]
In Jan. 2022, Space Entertainment Enterprise (SEE) announced plans for a film production studio and a sports arena in space. The module will be named SEE-1 and will dock on Axiom Station, which is the commercial wing of the International Space Station. SEE plans to host film and sports events, as well as content creation by Dec. 2024. [37]
In a 2018 poll, 50% of Americans believed space tourism will be routine for ordinary people by 2068. 32% believed long-term habitable space colonies will be built by 2068. But 58% said they were definitely or probably not interested in going to space. And the majority (63%) stated NASA’s top priority should be monitoring Earth’s climate, while only 18% said sending astronauts to Mars should be the highest priority and only 13% would prioritize sending astronauts to the Moon. [20]
The most common ideas for space colonization include: settling Earth’s Moon, building on Mars, and constructing free-floating space stations.
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Increasing the minimum wage would have a ripple effect, raising the incomes of people who make slightly above the minimum wage.
Melissa S. Kearney, PhD, and Benjamin Harris, PhD, of the Brookings Institution found that increasing the minimum wage would result in higher wages not only for the 3.7 million people earning minimum wage, but also for up to 35 million workers who make up to 150% of the federal minimum wage. Researchers at the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) found that an increase to $10.10 an hour would raise wages for 28 million Americans–about nine million of those due to the ripple effect.
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets help to improve student achievement on standardized tests.
Publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt tested an interactive, digital version of an Algebra 1 textbook for Apple’s iPad in California’s Riverside Unified School District. Students who used the iPad version scored 20 percent higher on standardized tests versus students who learned with traditional textbooks.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Olympics Hosting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Olympics are a financial drain on host cities.
No Olympic Games since 1960 has come in under budget.
Bent Flyvbjerg, PhD, and Allison Stewart, MBA, both at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, stated that “in the Games the budget is more like a fictitious minimum that is consistently overspent.”
The delayed Tokyo 2020 Summer Games were already the most expensive Olympics in history, running at 200% over budget on Sep. 7, 2020 though not scheduled to begin until July 2021. Tokyo forecast $7.3 billion in their 2013 bid, but the actual cost is estimated to be $15.84 billion as of Sep. 2020, with costs continuing to rise. A Jan. 2021 study found that losing foreign spectators due to COVID-19 restrictions could cost Japan as much as $23 billion.
Each host city is responsible for these cost overruns, in addition to their original budgets. The average cost overrun for host cities from 1968 to 2010 was 252% for the Summer Olympics and 135% for the Winter, with the 1976 Montreal Summer Games running over the most by 796%. Montreal’s 1976 cost overrun took 30 years to pay off, and the people of Quebec still pay $17 million a year to maintain Olympic Stadium, which is still without a roof over 40 years later and also needs $300 million worth of repairs.
The 2014 Sochi Games ran between $39 and $58 billion over the $12 billion budget, an amount that is more than spent on all previous winter Olympic games. The 2004 Athens Summer Games’ 60% overrun worsened the 2007-2012 Greek financial crisis.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The Beijing 2022 Winter Games are scheduled for Feb. 4 – Feb. 20, 2022 and will debut seven new sports: freestyle skiing: mixed team aerials; freestyle skiing: men’s big air; freestyle skiing: women’s big air; short-track speedskating: mixed team relay; ski jumping: mixed team event; snowboarding: mixed team snowboard cross; and bobsled: women’s monobob. [66]
On Dec. 6, 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics: “The Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic games given [China’s] ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and other human rights abuses.” Australia, Canada, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom have also announced diplomatic boycotts. [64] [65]
The host cities for four future Games have been announced: Paris Summer 2024, Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo Winter 2026, Los Angeles Summer 2028, and Brisbane Summer 2032 (Winter 2030 has not yet been set). [1] [2] [62]
Click to jump to more on the history of the Olympics.
|
# Should the US Government Regulate Prescription Drug Prices?'
**Argument**
Revenue from prescription drug sales fund research and development of new drugs.
Research and development (R&D) of a new drug costs between almost $1 billion and more than $2 billion. Considering that only approximately 12% of drugs tested are approved by the FDA, the average R&D cost per approved drug is significantly higher (about 12.5 billion).
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported, “In 2019, the pharmaceutical industry spent $83 billion dollars on R&D. Adjusted for inflation, that amount is about 10 times what the industry spent per year in the 1980s. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of new drugs approved for sale increased by 60 percent compared with the previous decade, with a peak of 59 new drugs approved in 2018.”
Drug companies can more reliably fund R&D for new drugs with revenue from drug sales than they could with venture capital or other outside investments. Studies have shown that cuts in drug companies’ revenue results in drops in future research and the number of new drugs.
Further, R&D is attached to drug companies’ long-term growth strategy not only in terms of revenue but also copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Without R&D and new drugs, the companies could fail to produce the growth and revenue needed to keep older drugs on the market.
Drug companies spent about 25% of revenues on R&D in 2018 and 2019, and were outpaced in R&D spending only by the industry (a component of electronics). As Investopedia editors summarized, “R&D is the pharmaceutical industry’s lifeblood. The success of major drug companies almost wholly depends upon the discovery and development of new medicines.”
**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 Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions and domestic partnerships could provide the protections and benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of marriage.
John F. Harvey, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that “Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.”
In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that “marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.”
In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that “the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”
Privileges available to couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships can include health insurance benefits, inheritance without a will, the ability to file state taxes jointly, and hospital visitation rights. New laws could enshrine other benefits for civil unions and domestic partnerships that would benefit same-sex couple as well as heterosexual couples who do not want to get married.
2016 presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stated that civil unions are adequate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefits are being bestowed to gay couples [in civil unions]… I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation… Why can’t we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government cannot bestow benefits unequally.”
43rd US President George W. Bush expressed his support for same-sex civil unions while in office: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so… I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” [158]
**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…
|
# Is Binge Watching Bad for You? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Binge-watching can cause serious physical health problems.
Sitting for extended periods of time has long been linked to slow metabolism, heart disease, cancer, blood clots, and deep vein thrombosis. Binge-watchers are prone to sit on the couch eating unhealthy food and snacking more, which is linked to weight gain.
One study found that binge-watching was related to poorer sleep quality, more fatigue, and insomnia, because of pre-sleep arousal. Researchers have also found that watching three or more hours of TV a day is associated with premature death.
Another study concluded, “Heavy users reported the least healthful dietary patterns and the poorest health-related characteristics… Binge-watching was also significantly associated with less healthy dietary patterns, including frequency of fast-food consumption as well as eating family meals in front of a television, and perceived stress.”
**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]
|
# Hockey Fighting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
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.
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.”
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated that fighting may prevent other injuries in a fast-moving, emotional, and intensely physical game. 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.”
**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}
|
# Space Colonization - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Humans have made a mess of Earth. We should clean it up instead of destroying a moon or another planet.
If humans have the technology, knowledge, and ability to transform an uninhabitable planet, moon, or other place in space into an appealing home for humans, then surely we have the technology, knowledge, and ability to fix the problems we’ve created on Earth.
Lori Marino, PhD, Founder and Executive Director of the Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy, asserted, “[W]e are not capable of enacting a successful colonization of another planet. The fact that we have destroyed our home planet is prima facie evidence of this assertion. It is sheer hubris to even consider the question of whether we should ‘go or not go’ as if we are deciding which movie to see this weekend because we really are not in a position to make that choice… What objective person would hire humanity to colonize a virgin planet, given its abysmal past performance in caring for the Earth’s ecosystem (overpopulation, climate change, mass extinctions)?”
Some assert that leaving Earth in shambles proves we are not ready to colonize space in terms of cultural, social, or moral infrastructure, regardless of technological advancements.
John Traphagan, PhD, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, argued, “Colonization has the odor of running away from the problems we’ve created here; if we do that, we will simply bring those problems with us. We need a major change in how we think about what it means to be human—we need to stop seeing our species as special and start seeing it as part of a collection of species. In my view, as long as we bring the… [idea] of human exceptionalism with us to other worlds, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes we have made here.”
**Background**
While humans have long thought of gods living in the sky, the idea of space travel or humans living in space dates to at least 1610 after the invention of the telescope when German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote to Italian astronomer Galileo: “Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travellers, maps of the celestial bodies.” [1]
In popular culture, space travel dates back to at least the mid-1600s when Cyrano de Bergerac first wrote of traveling to space in a rocket. Space fantasies flourished after Jules Verne’s “From Earth to the Moon” was published in 1865, and again when RKO Pictures released a film adaptation, A Trip to the Moon, in 1902. Dreams of space settlement hit a zenith in the 1950s with Walt Disney productions such as “Man and the Moon,” and science fiction novels including Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles (1950). [2] [3] [4]
Fueling popular imagination at the time was the American space race with Russia, amid which NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) was formed in the United States on July 29, 1958, when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law. After the Russians put the first person, Yuri Gagarin, in space on Apr. 12, 1961, NASA put the first people, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on the Moon in July 1969. What was science fiction began to look more like possibility. Over the next six decades, NASA would launch space stations, land rovers on Mars, and orbit Pluto and Jupiter, among other accomplishments. Launched by President Trump in 2017, NASA’s ongoing Artemis program intends to return humans to the Moon by 2024, landing the first woman on the lunar surface. The lunar launch is more likely to happen in 2025, due to a lag in space suit technology and delays with the Space Launch System rocket, the Orion capsule, and the lunar lander[5] [6] [7] [8] [36]
As of June 17, 2021, three countries had space programs with human space flight capabilities: China, Russia, and the United States. India’s planned human space flights have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they may launch in 2023. However, NASA ended its space shuttle program in 2011 when the shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 21. NASA astronauts going into space afterward rode along with Russians until 2020 when SpaceX took over and first launched NASA astronauts into space on Apr. 23, 2021. SpaceX is a commercial space travel business owned by Elon Musk that has ignited commercial space travel enthusiasm and the idea of “space tourism.” Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin have generated similar excitement. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Richard Branson launched himself, two pilots, and three mission specialists into space from New Mexico for a 90-minute flight on the Virgin Galactic Unity 22 mission on July 11, 2021. The flight marked the first time that passengers, rather than astronauts, went into space. [14] [15]
Jeff Bezos followed on July 20, 2021, accompanied by his brother, Mark, and both the oldest and youngest people to go to space: 82-year-old Wally Funk, a female pilot who tested with NASA in the 1960s but never flew, and Oliver Daemen, an 18-year-old student from the Netherlands. The fully automated, unpiloted Blue Origin New Shepard rocket launched on the 52nd anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing and was named after Alan Shepard, who was the first American to travel into space on May 5, 1961. [16] [17]
On Apr. 8, 2022, a SpaceX capsule launched, carrying three paying customers and a former NASA astronaut on a roundtrip to the International Space Station (ISS). Mission AX-1 docked at the ISS on Apr. 9 with former NASA astronaut, current Axiom Space employee, and mission commander, Michael Lopez-Alegría, Israeli businessman Eytan Stibbe, Canadian investor Mark Pathy, and American real estate magnate Larry Connor. The group returned to Earth on Apr. 25, 2022. While this is not the first time paying customers or non-astronauts have traveled to ISS (Russia has sold Soyuz seats), this is the first American mission and the first with no government astronaut corps members. [38] [39]
The International Space Station has been continuously occupied by groups of six astronauts since Nov. 2000, for a total of 243 astronauts from 19 countries as of May 13, 2021. Astronauts spend an average of 182 days (about six months) aboard the ISS. As of Feb. 2020, Russian Valery Polyakov had spent the longest continuous time in space (437.7 days in 1994-1995 on space station Mir), followed by Russian Sergei Avdeyev (379.6 days in 1998-1999 on Mir), Russians Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov (365 days in 1987-1988 on Mir), American Mark Vande Hei (355 days on ISS) Russian Mikhail Kornienko and American Scott Kelly (340.4 days in 2015-2016 on Mir and ISS respectively), and American Christina Koch (328 days in 2019-20 in ISS). [18] [19] [40]
In Jan. 2022, Space Entertainment Enterprise (SEE) announced plans for a film production studio and a sports arena in space. The module will be named SEE-1 and will dock on Axiom Station, which is the commercial wing of the International Space Station. SEE plans to host film and sports events, as well as content creation by Dec. 2024. [37]
In a 2018 poll, 50% of Americans believed space tourism will be routine for ordinary people by 2068. 32% believed long-term habitable space colonies will be built by 2068. But 58% said they were definitely or probably not interested in going to space. And the majority (63%) stated NASA’s top priority should be monitoring Earth’s climate, while only 18% said sending astronauts to Mars should be the highest priority and only 13% would prioritize sending astronauts to the Moon. [20]
The most common ideas for space colonization include: settling Earth’s Moon, building on Mars, and constructing free-floating space stations.
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
The formal dismissal process guaranteed by tenure protects teachers from punitive evaluation systems and premature dismissal.
It allows under-performing teachers a chance to improve their skills rather than be hastily fired.
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
People should pay for their own health care, not have it given to them by the government.
Under a single-payer system, the right to health care is paid for through taxes, and people who work hard and pay those taxes are forced to subsidize health care for those who are not employed. In the United States, people already have a right to purchase health care, but they should never have a right to receive health care free of charge. Health care is a service that should be paid for, not a right.
**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…
|
# Olympics Hosting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Olympics create a sense of national pride.
According to a global poll, a majority of people in 18 of 21 countries stated their nations’ performance at the Olympics was “important to their national pride,” including 91% of Kenyans, 86% of Filipinos, and 84% of Turks.
Roger Bannister, the first person to ever run a mile in under four minutes and a 1952 Helskinki Olympian, stated of his country’s performance at the 2012 London Summer Games: “Team G[reat] B[ritain]’s heroic success seems to have reawoken in us our sense of national pride… a realisation perhaps that, as a people, we have the ability, the drive and the determination to be great.”
Moorad Choudhry, MBA, PhD, Treasurer of the Corporate Banking Division of the Royal Bank of Scotland, stated, “A genuine feel-good factor [of hosting the Olympics] can be very positive for the economy, not just in terms of higher spending but also in productivity at work, which in turn boosts output.”
Lee Ji-seol, who lives in PyeongChang, said that fellow residents celebrated their selection as the 2018 Winter Games host city: “The entire town was out dancing.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The Beijing 2022 Winter Games are scheduled for Feb. 4 – Feb. 20, 2022 and will debut seven new sports: freestyle skiing: mixed team aerials; freestyle skiing: men’s big air; freestyle skiing: women’s big air; short-track speedskating: mixed team relay; ski jumping: mixed team event; snowboarding: mixed team snowboard cross; and bobsled: women’s monobob. [66]
On Dec. 6, 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics: “The Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic games given [China’s] ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and other human rights abuses.” Australia, Canada, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom have also announced diplomatic boycotts. [64] [65]
The host cities for four future Games have been announced: Paris Summer 2024, Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo Winter 2026, Los Angeles Summer 2028, and Brisbane Summer 2032 (Winter 2030 has not yet been set). [1] [2] [62]
Click to jump to more on the history of the Olympics.
|
# Is Cell Phone Radiation Safe?'
**Argument**
Numerous peer-reviewed studies have found no evidence that cell phone use causes an increased risk of brain tumors.
A May 21, 2021 study concluded, “Canadian trends in glioma [brain tumors] and cell phone use were not compatible with increased risks of glioma.”
Other studies have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors.
Studies that conclude there is an association between cell phone use and cancer have serious limitations including small sample groups, inconsistent results, and the fact that most studies use rats, which are not humans. Further, some studies, including a now-retracted study published in 2020, have asserted a link between cell phones and cancer, but studied types of radiation not emitted by cell phones.
Finally, an “association” is not proof of a causal link. As explained by an article in Nature Methods: “As an example, suppose we observe that people who daily drink more than 4 cups of coffee have a decreased chance of developing skin cancer. This does not necessarily mean that coffee confers resistance to cancer; one alternative explanation would be that people who drink a lot of coffee work indoors for long hours and thus have little exposure to the sun, a known risk.”
**Background**
|
# Is Artificial Intelligence Good for Society? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
AI can offer accessibility for people with disabilities.
Artificial intelligence is commonly integrated into smartphones and other household devices. Virtual assistants, including Siri, Alexa, and Cortana, can perform innumerable tasks from making a phone call to navigating the internet. Those who are deaf and hearing impaired can access transcripts of voicemails or other audio, for example.
Other virtual assistants can transcribe conversations as they happen, allowing for more comprehension and participation by those who are communicationally challenged. Using voice commands with virtual assistants can allow better use by people with dexterity disabilities who may have difficulty navigating small buttons or screens, or turning on a lamp.
Apps enabled by AI on smartphones and other devices, including VoiceOver and TalkBack, can read messages, describe app icons or images, and give information such as battery levels for visually impaired people. Other apps, such as Voiceitt, can transcribe and standardize the voices of people with speech impediments.
Wheelmap provides users with information about wheelchair accessibility. And Evelity offers users indoor navigation tools that are customized to the user’s needs, providing audio or text instructions and routes for wheelchair accessibility.
Other AI implementations such as smart thermostats, smart lighting, and smart plugs can be automated to work on a schedule to aid people with mobility or cognitive disabilities lead more independent lives.
More advanced AI projects can combine with robotics to help physically disabled people. HOOBOX Robotics, for example, uses facial recognition software to allow a wheelchair user to move the wheelchair with facial expressions, making movement easier for seniors and those with ALS or quadriparesis.
**Background**
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the use of “computers and machines to mimic the problem-solving and decision-making capabilities of the human mind,” according to IBM. [1]
The idea of AI goes back at least 2,700 years. As Adrienne Mayor, research scholar, folklorist, and science historian at Stanford University, explained: “Our ability to imagine artificial intelligence goes back to the ancient times. Long before technological advances made self-moving devices possible, ideas about creating artificial life and robots were explored in ancient myths.” [2]
Mayor noted that the myths about Hephaestus, the Greek god of invention and blacksmithing, included precursors to AI. For example, Hephaestus created the giant bronze man, Talos, which had a mysterious life force from the gods called ichor. Hephaestus also created Pandora and her infamous box, as well as a set of automated servants made of gold that were given the knowledge of the gods. Mayor concluded, “Not one of those myths has a good ending once the artificial beings are sent to Earth. It’s almost as if the myths say that it’s great to have these artificial things up in heaven used by the gods. But once they interact with humans, we get chaos and destruction.” [2]
The modern version of AI largely began when Alan Turing, who contributed to breaking the Nazi’s Enigma code during World War II, created the Turing test to determine if a computer is capable of “thinking.” The value and legitimacy of the test have long been the subject of debate. [1] [3] [4]
The “Father of Artificial Intelligence,” John McCarthy, coined the term “artificial intelligence” when he, with Marvin Minsky and Claude Shannon, proposed a 1956 summer workshop on the topic at Dartmouth College. McCarthy defined artificial intelligence as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.” He later created the computer programming language LISP (which is still used in AI), hosted computer chess games against human Russian opponents, and developed the first computer with ”hand-eye” capability, all important building blocks for AI. [1] [5] [6] [7]
The first AI program designed to mimic how humans solve problems, Logic Theorist, was created by Allen Newell, J.C. Shaw, and Herbert Simon in 1955-1956. The program was designed to solve problems from Principia Mathematica (1910-13) written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. [1] [8]
In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt invented the Perceptron, which he claimed was “the first machine which is capable of having an original idea.” Though the machine was hounded by skeptics, it was later praised as the “foundations for all of this artificial intelligence.” [1] [9]
As computers became cheaper in the 1960s and 70s, AI programs such as Joseph Weizenbaum’s ELIZA flourished, and US government agencies including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began to fund AI-related research. But computers were still too weak to manage the language tasks researchers asked of them. Another influx of funding in the 1980s and early 90s furthered the research, including the invention of expert systems by Edward Feigenbaum and Joshua Lederberg. But progress again waned with a drop in government funding. [10]
In 1997, Gary Kasparov, reigning world chess champion and grand master, was defeated by IBM’s Deep Blue AI computer program, a huge step for AI researchers. More recently, advances in computer storage limits and speeds have opened new avenues for AI research and implementation, such as aiding in scientific research and forging new paths in medicine for patient diagnosis, robotic surgery, and drug development. [1] [10] [11] [12]
Now, artificial intelligence is used for a variety of everyday implementations including facial recognition software, online shopping algorithms, search engines, digital assistants like Siri and Alexa, translation services, automated safety functions on cars (and the promised self-driving cars of the future), cybersecurity, airport body scanning security, poker playing strategy, and fighting disinformation on social media, among others. [13] [58]
|
# American Socialism - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The US already has too many costly socialist entitlements.
Socialism is a series of entitlements that cost the American public a considerable amount of money. 2018 estimates put the cost of Democratic Socialist proposals, including but not limited to Social Security expansion, free college, paid family leave, and medicare-for-all, at $42.5 trillion over ten years. In 2017, the federal government spent around $2.7 trillion on entitlements including Social Security, medicare, and unemployment insurance. If new entitlements cost $4.2 more per year, that’s a 157% increase in government spending for handouts.
To raise money to pay for the entitlements, taxes are going to have to be raised. The socialists propose a wealth tax, but 60% of registered voters were not in favor of a wealth tax if it applied to them (if they won the lottery, for example). [
**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?
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Taxes:
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 increased the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents per gallon, which directly impacted the middle class. The 1993 tax hikes cannot be credited with the economic boom of the 1990s: it was after the Republican Congress passed tax cuts in 1997 that the economy really became stronger and the budget was balanced. Clinton designed his tax plans to place an unfair burden on the wealthy, punishing the most productive members of the US economy while cutting taxes for the least productive.
**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…
|
# Police Body Cameras - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Police body cameras invade the privacy of citizens, potentially exposing victims and subjecting citizens to facial recognition software.
Recording police encounters with the public could lead to the public exposure of private medical conditions such as mental illness. Victims of crimes such as rape or domestic abuse may be further traumatized by recordings. Informants or witnesses may fear reprisal from criminals. People being arrested may fear the damage of public exposure, such as being fired from a job.
Former Spokane, Washington, Police Chief Frank Straub, PhD, notes that “every day we are exposing persons challenged by mental illness, autism, developmental disabilities, addiction, etc. We are creating and making public recordings of their illness and potentially creating life-long consequences.”
Former Chief of Police Ken Miller, MPA, of Greensboro, North Carolina, said that if citizens “think that they are going to be recorded every time they talk to an officer, regardless of the context, it is going to damage openness and create barriers to important relationships.”
One such barrier is fear of retaliation. A US Justice Department report notes that some “people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police.”
Another privacy fear, according to the ACLU, is that police body cameras will be worn as “roving surveillance devices that track our faces, voices, and even the unique way we walk” that could be used “to track, classify, and discriminate against people based on their most personal, innate features.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Police body cameras (also called body-worn cameras) are small cameras worn on a law enforcement officer’s chest or head to record interactions between the officer and the public. The cameras have a microphone to capture sound and internal data storage to save video footage for later review. [37] [41]
According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, “[t]he video and audio recordings from BWCs [body-worn cameras] can be used by law enforcement to demonstrate transparency to their communities; to document statements, observations, behaviors, and other evidence; and to deter unprofessional, illegal, and inappropriate behaviors by both law enforcement and the public.” [41] Police body cameras are in use around the world from Australia and Uruguay to the United Kingdom and South Africa. [19] [32] [35] [36]
After the police shooting death of Michael Brown on Aug. 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, President Barack Obama requested $263 million to fund body camera programs and police training on Dec. 1, 2014. [38] [46] As a result the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC-PIP). Between fiscal year (FY) 2015 and FY 2019, the BWC-PIP has given over 493 awards worth over a collective $70 million to law enforcement agencies in 47 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. Agencies in Maine, Montana, and North Dakota have not been awarded federal body camera funding. [40] [42] [43] [44]
As of Oct. 29, 2018, the most recently available information, 36 states and DC had specific legislation about the use of police body cameras. At that time, another four states had pending body camera legislation. [45]
On June 7, 2021, US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, JD, directed the ATF, DEA, FBI and US Marshals “to develop and submit for review” body-worn camera policies in which agents wear cameras during “(1) a pre-planned attempt to serve an arrest warrant or other pre-planned arrest, including the apprehension of fugitives sought on state and local warrants; or (2) the execution of a search or seizure warrant or order.” [63]
|
# Should Abortion Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated, “eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades…. In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce.”
After being denied an abortion, household poverty increased and lasted four or more years, resulting in an inability to cover basic expenses including food, housing and transportation. A denied abortion was associated with a lowered credit score, increased debt, and an increase in negative public records including evictions and bankruptcies. The households were also more reliant on government assistance. Transgender and nonbinary people denied abortions may face even worse outcomes.
And the consequences can be much more dire. “If a woman of childbearing age dies, it has enormous economic consequences…. It’s someone who society has invested in and who has many productive economic years ahead of them,” according to David Slusky, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas. Often, death also removes a wage-earner and caregiver from the household.
60% of women seeking abortions already had other children. Being denied an abortion worsened the well-being of their older children, including not meeting childhood development markers.
Women denied an abortion were more likely to have serious health complications, have poor physical and mental health for years afterward, and stay with abusive partners. Women denied abortion were more likely to be raising their children alone five years later.
The Turnaway Study concluded, “Abortion does not harm women,” and “Women who receive a wanted abortion are more financially stable, set more ambitious goals, raise children under more stable conditions, and are more likely to have a wanted child later.”
**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 Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe.
The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.
**Background**
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Traffic accidents and deaths increase when marijuana is legalized.
Marijuana-related traffic deaths rose 62% following the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. Jim Leal, former Chief of Police of Newark, California, said of legalizing marijuana, “You are commercializing a product that is just going to put more impaired drivers on the road, worsening a problem that we already have. What officers are seeing with THC levels being very high is they are seeing impairment being far worse than they have ever seen in the past.”
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reported that fatal crashes involving marijuana doubled after legalization in Washington. Marshall Doney, President and CEO of AAA, said, “Marijuana can affect driver safety by impairing vehicle control and judgment.” The Highway Loss Data Institute found an increased crash risk in legal marijuana states and said collision claims in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington increased 6% as compared to states that don’t have legal marijuana. A meta-study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) concluded that “Cannabis use prior to driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident.”
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Cancel culture gives a voice to disenfranchised or less powerful people.
Osita Nwanevu, MPP, Staff Writer at The New Republic, states, “The critics of cancel culture are plainly threatened not by a new and uniquely powerful kind of public criticism but by a new set of critics: young progressives, including many minorities and women who, largely through social media, have obtained a seat at the table where matters of justice and etiquette are debated and are banging it loudly to make up for lost time.”
Meredith Clark, PhD, Assistant Professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia, elaborates on the power given to disenfranchised voices, “To me, it’s ultimately an expression of agency. To a certain extent: I really do think of it like a breakup and a taking back of one’s power.”
Oscar Schwartz, PhD, author, elaborates, “While there may be instances of collateral damage [in cancel culture], even people innocently accused, a more pressing problem to address is how and why institutions we are supposed to trust are deaf to many of the problems facing women and minority groups.”
While not everyone has access to legislators or other powerful people, everyone can sign up for a Twitter account. “Canceling is a way to acknowledge that you don’t have to have the power to change structural inequality. You don’t even have to have the power to change all of public sentiment. But as an individual, you can still have power beyond measure [online]” and “for black culture and cultures of people who are lower income and disenfranchised, this is the first time you do have a voice in those types of conversations,” explained Anne Charity Hudley, PhD, Chair of Linguistics of African America at the University of California Santa Barbara.
Dee Lockett, Music Editor for Vulture, summarizes the results of the social media call outs during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests: “It’s been most effective as a collective public display of pointing the finger at a problem. It’s a massive signal boost, but that doesn’t mean it’s valueless. It’s performative … to post these screenshots of our donation receipts, swipe ups to anti-black reading lists, and lying en masse on the grass for eight-plus minutes as George Floyd’s last words are recited over a mic. It’s also the language and currency of this era. Purses are opening. Cops (in one case) have been charged. There’s also a lot of value in seeing your faves turn into grassroots activists overnight. Halsey is a war nurse out of nowhere?! John Boyega is an anointed civil-rights leader. Kehlani is mobilizing on the ground. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
**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]
|
# Is There Really a Santa Claus?'
**Argument**
“Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy… He lives and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.”
**Background**
Once a year, millions of children around the world eagerly wait for a plump, bearded man dressed in red and white to bring them presents. Known as Santa Claus, his origins are mysterious and his very existence has been disputed. Some people believe that he lives and works in the North Pole, employs a group of elves to manufacture toys, distributes the gifts annually with the aid of flying reindeer, and regularly utters “ho ho ho” in a commanding voice.
But is Santa Claus man or myth? Santa believers argue that he is commonly sighted at shopping malls, that the disappearance of milk and cookies left for him is evidence of his existence, and that, after all, those Christmas gifts have to come from somewhere.
Santa skeptics argue that no one man could deliver presents to millions of households in one night, that his toy factory has never been located in the vicinity of the North Pole, and that Christmas presents are really purchased in secret by parents.
|
# Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?'
**Argument**
MLDA 21 is ineffective because young adults will consume alcohol regardless, leading to dangerous behaviors.
By the time 60% of people are 18, they have had at least one alcoholic drink. 32% of 18-20 year olds admitted to alcohol consumption, according to the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior.
Rather than criminalizing an act that is legal for other adults, lowering the minimum legal drinking age could allow for more regulatory oversight of drinking by 18- to 20-year-olds, whether by a graduated drinking license (a sort of “drinking learner’s permit”) or simply the enforcement of laws other adults are subject to.
**Background**
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased. Read more background…
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion.
William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income.”
**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 Golf a Sport?'
**Argument**
Golf meets the definition of sport by requiring physical exertion.
Golfing without a cart burns an average of 360 calories per hour (306 with a caddie), compared to about 345 doing gymnastics and 273 bowling playing table tennis or doing yoga. Golfers who play a nine-hole course (2-2.5 miles ) without a cart while carrying their own clubs burn 721 calories (613 calories if a caddie carries the bag of clubs which weighs 30-50 pounds on average). Professional tournaments have four rounds of 18 holes, which would be 4,904 calories burned over four days.
Further, golf’s demand for physical exertion often results in injuries. Golf is so physically demanding that up to 62 percent of amateur golfers and approximately 88 percent of professional golfers suffer injuries each year. Playing golf can lead to problems in the lower back, elbow, wrist, hand, shoulder, or head. More than half of professional golfers have had to stop playing because of their injuries. One-third of PGA (Professional Golfers’ Association) players have experienced lower back injuries that lasted more than two weeks.
Stephen W. West, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Sport Injury Prevention Research Centre at the University of Calgary, explained, “The physical demands of competitive golf are characterised by long periods (typically over 5 hours) of low/moderate intensity exercise, punctuated by the high speed movements required to accelerate the golf ball to speeds exceeding 160mph. Successful performance is reliant upon the athlete’s ability to execute a wide range of fine motor skills within the context of very changeable environmental conditions.”
For the casual or recreational player, golf still offers the benefits of sports: strength and endurance, flexibility, aerobic fitness, and balance and core stability because the sport requires walking, strength training, and balance. Carrying his own 25-pound golf bag, the average male golfer can expect to burn about 1,442 calories playing 18-holes. Even using a push-cart for the golf bag results in burning about 1,436 calories over an 18 hole course.
**Background**
Golf in the United States is a $70 billion annual industry with 24.1 million players. A 2016 poll by Public Policy Polling found that nineteen percent of Americans call themselves golf fans, down from twenty-three percent in 2015. The debate over whether golf is a sport rages on the internet, in bars, amongst sportswriters, and even on the golf course. Read more background…
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Individual investment accounts would boost economic growth by injecting money back into America’s financial system.
In the decades following Chile’s privatization of its pension system in 1981, the savings accounts that were established generated the equivalent of about 40% of GNP, and Chile’s annual growth rate rose to above 7%, double the country’s historic growth rate, according to José Piñera, PhD, Chile’s former Secretary of Labor and Social Security.
Peter Ferrara, JD. former Director of the International Center for Law and Economics, stated that “The reduced tax burden and higher savings and investment resulting from personal accounts would substantially boost economic growth. This would result in more jobs, better jobs, and higher wages and overall income.”
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legal marijuana is regulated for consumer safety.
People buying marijuana on the street have no way of knowing if what they’re ingesting is covered with mold, fungus, pesticides, or other harmful substances. Once marijuana is legalized, the government is able to enforce laboratory testing and regulations to ensure that marijuana is free of toxins. For example, Washington law requires health warnings, quality assurance, labeling for the concentration of THC, and other important regulations for consumers.
Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska all passed regulations to prevent kids’ exposure to marijuana, including child-resistant packaging. Legalization allows the government to set age restrictions on buyers and to license and regulate the entire supply chain of marijuana, including growers, distributors, retailers, and testing laboratories. California regulations include limitations on the serving sizes for edible marijuana products, seed-to-sale testing and tracking, and 24-hour video surveillance at retail stores.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Many college graduates are employed in jobs that do not require college degrees.
According to the Department of Labor, as many as 17 million college graduates work in positions that did not require a college education. 1 in 3 college graduates had a job that required a high school diploma or less in 2012. More than 16,000 parking lot attendants, 83,000 bartenders, 115,000 janitors and 15% of taxi drivers have bachelor’s degrees. College graduates with jobs that do not require college degrees earn 30-40% less per week than those who work in jobs requiring college degrees.
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Fracking Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Fracking is a safe method of extracting natural gas.
The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), stated, “Hydraulic fracturing has been a key technology in making shale gas an affordable addition to the Nation’s energy supply, and the technology has proven to be a safe and effective stimulation technique. Ground water is protected during the shale gas fracturing process by a combination of the casing and cement that is installed when the well is drilled and the thousands of feet of rock between the fracture zone and any fresh or treatable aquifers.”
Studies completed by researchers at Pennsylvania State University and Yale University found fracking was not contaminating groundwater in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania.
Mark Zoback, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics at Stanford University, stated, “The assertion that this [fracking] caused or will soon cause severe environmental damage is simply not true and needlessly alarmist. Through emphasizing best practice, appropriate regulation, and enforcement of those regulations, I have every confidence that horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracturing can be done with minimal environmental impact.”
Further, earthquakes caused by fracking are extremely rare and the US Geological Survey maintains that there are no more earthquakes now than in prior years, only more equipment to detect the quakes.
**Background**
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement. Then, a horizontal well is drilled in the layer of rock that contains natural gas. After that, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at an extremely high pressure so that it fractures the rock in a way that allows oil and gas to flow through the cracks to the surface. [1]
Colonel Edward A. L. Roberts first developed a version of fracking in 1862. During the Civil War at the Battle of Fredericksburg, Roberts noticed how artillery blasts affected channels of water. The idea of “shooting the well” was further developed by lowering a sort of torpedo into an oil well. The torpedo was then detonated, which increased oil flow. [2]
In the 1940s, explosives were replaced by high-pressure liquids, beginning the era of hydraulic fracturing. The 21st century brought two further innovations: horizontal drilling and slick water (a mix of water, sand, and chemicals) to increase fluid flow. Spurred by increased financial investment and global oil prices, fracking picked up speed and favor. About one million oil wells were fracked between 1940 and 2014, with about one third of the wells fracked after 2000. [2] [3]
Most US states allow fracking, though four states have banned the practice as of Feb. 2021: Vermont (2012), New York (temporarily in 2014; permanently in 2020), Maryland (2017), and Washington (2019). In Apr. 2021, California banned new fracking projects as of 2024. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [32]
Fracking was a hot-button issue during the US presidential race of 2020, with President Trump firmly in favor of fracking and Vice President Biden expressing more concern about the practice, especially on federal lands.
|
# Should Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?'
**Argument**
Concealed handguns protect women and minorities who can’t always rely on the police for protection.
David French, senior writer at the National Review and a veteran of the Iraq War, explained, “when you [concealed] carry your weapon, you don’t feel intimidated, you feel empowered. In a way that’s tough to explain, the fact that you’re so much less dependent on the state for your personal security and safety makes you feel more ‘free’ than you’ve ever felt before.”
John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, found that, “between 2012, and 2018, the percent of women with permits grew 111% faster for women and the percent of blacks with permits grew 20% faster than for whites. Permits for Asians grew 29% faster than for whites.”
Women who have been victimized as adults were more likely to own a gun, more likely to own more than one gun, and more likely to carry a gun for protection. According to Pew Research, women are slightly more likely to report owning a gun for protection (71% to 65%), but men report owning guns for more activities (hunting, sports shooting, etc) and men report owning more types of guns (shotguns and rifles rather than just a handgun) than women, so women are more likely to own handguns only for protection.
Jim Curcuruto, Director of Research and Market Development at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said, of the increase in gun sales during the 2020 civil rights movement, “The highest overall firearm sales increase comes from Black men and women, who show a 58.2% increase in purchases during the first six months of 2020 versus the same period last year,” As Bruce Tomlin, a Black gun owner, explained to NPR, “I just feel like in my viewpoint, every Black person in America, especially Black males, needs to have some type of protection with them as often as [they] can, because I think the political climate [is] getting to the point where it’s just going to be a lot of violence coming our way. I just feel safer now having a gun. And I didn’t always feel that way. I’ve never been the world’s biggest fan of guns, but I just don’t feel safe without one… I’d rather go to trial than go to the cemetery”
**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…
|
# Private Prisons - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Private prisons exploit employees and prisoners for corporate gain.
Private prisons paid staff $0.38 less per hour than public prisons, $14,901 less in yearly salaries, and required 58 fewer hours of training prior to service than public prisons, leaving staff less prepared to do their jobs, contributing to a 43% turnover rate compared to 15% for public prisons. Several private prisons have been fined for understaffing, and leaving too few guards and staff to maintain order in the facilities.
Ivette Feliciano, PBS NewsHour Weekend producer and reporter, explained that a report from Michael Horowitz, JD, Justice Department Inspector General, found that “per capita, privately-run facilities had more contraband smuggled in, more lockdowns and uses of force by correctional officers, more assaults, both by inmates on other inmates and by inmates of correctional officers, more complaints about medical care, staff, food, and conditions of confinement, and two facilities were housing inmates in solitary confinement to free up bed space. The findings also highlighted chronic understaffing as the root of many problems.”
The use of private prisons resulted in 178 more prisoners per population of one million. Each prisoner costs about $60 per day, resulting in $1.9 to $10.6 million in gains for private prisons for new prisoners. And, when private prisons are used, sentences are longer.
In prison, private companies can charge inflated prices for basic necessities such as soap and underwear. Communications, including phone calls and emails, also come at a steep price, forcing inmates to work for pennies ($1.09 to $2.75 per day at private prisons, or $0.99 to $3.13 in public prisons), or to rely on family to pay hundreds of dollars a month.
**Background**
Prison privatization generally operates in one of three ways: 1. Private companies provide services to a government-owned and managed prison, such as building maintenance, food supplies, or vocational training; 2. Private companies manage government-owned facilities; or 3. Private companies own and operate the prisons and charge the government to house inmates. [1]
In the United States, private prisons have their roots in slavery. Some privately owned prisons held enslaved people while the slave trade continued after the importation of slaves was banned in 1807. Recaptured runaways were also imprisoned in private facilities as were black people who were born free and then illegally captured to be sold into slavery. Many plantations were turned into private prisons from the Civil War forward; for example, the Angola Plantation became the Louisiana State Penitentiary (nicknamed “Angola” for the African homeland of many of the slaves who originally worked on the plantation), the largest maximum-security prison in the country. In 2000, the Vann Plantation in North Carolina was opened as the private, minimal security Rivers Correctional Facility (operated by GEO Group), though the facility’s federal contract expired in Mar. 2021. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Inmates in private prisons in the 19th century were commonly used for labor via “convict leasing” in which the prison owners were paid for the labor of the inmates. According to the Innocence Project, Jim Crow laws after the Civil War ensured the newly freed black population was imprisoned at high rates for petty or nonexistent crimes in order to maintain the labor force needed for picking cotton and other labor previously performed by enslaved people. However, the practice of convict leasing extended beyond the American South. California awarded private management contracts for San Quentin State Prison in order to allow the winning bidder leasing rights to the convicts until 1860. Convict leasing faded in the early 20th century as states banned the practice and shifted to forced farming and other labor on the land of the prisons themselves. [2] [3] [7] [8] [9] [10]
What Americans think of now as a private prison is an institution owned by a conglomerate such as CoreCivic, GEO Group, LaSalle Corrections, or Management and Training Corporation. This sort of private prison began operations in 1984 in Tennessee and 1985 in Texas in response to the rapidly rising prison population during the war on drugs. State-run facilities were overpopulated with increasing numbers of people being convicted for drug offenses. Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) first promised to run larger prisons more cheaply to solve the problems. In 1987, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (now GEO Group) won a federal contract to run an immigration detention center, expanding the focus of private prisons. [11] [12] [13]
In 2016, the federal government announced it would phase out the use of private prisons: a policy rescinded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions under the Trump administration but reinstated under President Biden. However, Biden’s order did not limit the use of private facilities for federal immigrant detention. 20 US states did not use private prisons as of 2019. [11] [12] [14]
In 2019, 115,428 people (8% of the prison population) were incarcerated in state or federal private prisons; 81% of the detained immigrant population (40,634 people) was held in private facilities. The federal government held the most (27,409) people in private prisons in 2019, followed by Texas (12,516), and Florida (11,915). However, Montana held the largest percentage of the state’s inmates in private prisons (47%). [11]
According to the Sentencing Project, “[p]rivate prisons incarcerated 99,754 American residents in 2020, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 14%. [37]
On Jan. 20, 2022, the federal Bureau of Prisons reported 153,855 total federal inmates, 6,336 of whom were held in private facilities, or about 4% of people in federal custody. [36]
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
A gold standard would reduce the risk of economic crises and recessions, while increasing income levels and decreasing unemployment rates.
The ability of the Federal Reserve to print fiat money (money not backed by a physical commodity such as gold) and maintain easy credit by keeping interest rates too low from 2001 to 2006 was a significant cause of the real estate bubble which led to the Great Recession. The response to the recession has been more of what caused it in the first place – printing money. Over $2 trillion in bailouts for failed financial institutions was paid for with Federal Reserve money, setting the stage for another possible bubble and collapse. The Federal Reserve’s history of providing economic stability with fiat money has not been a good one. Since the United States abandoned the gold standard there have been 13 financial crises, including the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic recession.
Prior to the United States abandoning the gold standard, the real median income for men rose an average of 2.7% per year between 1950 and 1968. Between leaving the gold standard in 1971 and 2011, the average median income for men only increased 0.2% per year.
In addition, unemployment levels were lower in the decades leading up to the United States abandoning the gold standard. Between 1944 and 1971, while on a partial gold standard, unemployment averaged 5%. From 1971 to 2019, unemployment levels have averaged 6.2% under the fiat money 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…
|
# Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms make getting ready for school easier, which can improve punctuality.
When uniforms are mandatory, parents and students do not spend time choosing appropriate outfits for the school day. According to a national survey, over 90% of US school leaders believe school uniform or formal dress code policies “eliminate wardrobe battles with kids,” make it “easier to get kids ready in the morning,” and create a “time saving in the morning.” Tracey Marinelli, Superintendent of the Lyndhurst School District in New Jersey, credited the district’s uniform policy for reducing the number of students running late. Lyndhurst student Mike Morreale agreed, stating that “it’s so much easier to dress than having to search for clothes and find out that something doesn’t match.”
**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 Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Gay marriage is a civil right protected by the US Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, and is an internationally recognized human right for all people.
The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 21, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.” In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man.” [60] In 2014, the White House website listed same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals.
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause” of the US Constitution. US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was “unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.” The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared at least 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion… the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”
Amnesty International states that “this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle.”
**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 the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Raising the minimum wage would lead to a healthier population and prevent premature deaths.
A 2014 Human Impact Partners study by Rajiv Bhatia, MD, found that raising the Californian minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2017 would “significantly benefit health and well-being.” The study found that those earning a higher minimum wage would have enough to eat, be more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke, suffer from fewer emotional and psychological problems, and even prevent 389 premature deaths a year. A 2014 study by the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) found that minimum wage workers are more likely to report poor health, suffer from chronic diseases, and be unable to afford balanced meals. The study concluded that “policies that reduce poverty and raise the wages of low-income people can be expected to significantly improve overall health and reduce health inequities.” Edward Ehlinger, MD, State Health Commissioner for Minnesota, stated that raising the Minnesotan minimum wage from $6.15 an hour to $9.50 by mid-2016 was probably “the biggest public health achievement… in the four years I’ve been health commissioner… If you look at the conditions that impact health, income is right at the top of the list… Anything we can do to help enhance economic stability will have a huge public health benefit. This is a major public health issue.”
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
On a tablet, e-textbooks can be updated instantly to get new editions or information.
Schools will not have to constantly purchase new hardware, software, or new physical copies of textbooks. Speaking at Mooresville Middle School, NC, President Obama said, “I want to see more apps that can be instantly updated with academic content the day it’s available, so you don’t have old, outdated textbooks with student names still in them from years ago. These are the tools that our children deserve.” Tablets are especially beneficial for subjects that constantly change, such as biology or computer science.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Is Artificial Intelligence Good for Society? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Artificial intelligence can improve workplace safety.
AI doesn’t get stressed, tired, or sick, three major causes of human accidents in the workplace. AI robots can collaborate with or replace humans for especially dangerous tasks. For example, 50% of construction companies that used drones to inspect roofs and other risky tasks saw improvements in safety.
Artificial intelligence can also help humans be more safe. For instance, AI can ensure employees are up-to-date on training by tracking and automatically scheduling safety or other training. AI can also check and offer corrections for ergonomics to prevent repetitive stress injuries or worse.
An AI program called AI-SAFE (Automated Intelligent System for Assuring Safe Working Environments) aims to automate the workplace personal protective equipment (PPE) check, eliminating human errors that could cause accidents in the workplace. With COVID-19 and more people wearing more PPE to prevent the spread of the virus, this sort of AI could protect against outbreaks.
In India, AI was used in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic to reopen factories safely by providing camera, cell phone, and smart wearable device-based technology to ensure social distancing, take employee temperatures at regular intervals, and perform contact tracing if anyone tested positive for the virus.
AI can also perform more sensitive harm-reduction tasks in the workplace such as scanning work emails for improper behavior and types of harassment.
**Background**
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the use of “computers and machines to mimic the problem-solving and decision-making capabilities of the human mind,” according to IBM. [1]
The idea of AI goes back at least 2,700 years. As Adrienne Mayor, research scholar, folklorist, and science historian at Stanford University, explained: “Our ability to imagine artificial intelligence goes back to the ancient times. Long before technological advances made self-moving devices possible, ideas about creating artificial life and robots were explored in ancient myths.” [2]
Mayor noted that the myths about Hephaestus, the Greek god of invention and blacksmithing, included precursors to AI. For example, Hephaestus created the giant bronze man, Talos, which had a mysterious life force from the gods called ichor. Hephaestus also created Pandora and her infamous box, as well as a set of automated servants made of gold that were given the knowledge of the gods. Mayor concluded, “Not one of those myths has a good ending once the artificial beings are sent to Earth. It’s almost as if the myths say that it’s great to have these artificial things up in heaven used by the gods. But once they interact with humans, we get chaos and destruction.” [2]
The modern version of AI largely began when Alan Turing, who contributed to breaking the Nazi’s Enigma code during World War II, created the Turing test to determine if a computer is capable of “thinking.” The value and legitimacy of the test have long been the subject of debate. [1] [3] [4]
The “Father of Artificial Intelligence,” John McCarthy, coined the term “artificial intelligence” when he, with Marvin Minsky and Claude Shannon, proposed a 1956 summer workshop on the topic at Dartmouth College. McCarthy defined artificial intelligence as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.” He later created the computer programming language LISP (which is still used in AI), hosted computer chess games against human Russian opponents, and developed the first computer with ”hand-eye” capability, all important building blocks for AI. [1] [5] [6] [7]
The first AI program designed to mimic how humans solve problems, Logic Theorist, was created by Allen Newell, J.C. Shaw, and Herbert Simon in 1955-1956. The program was designed to solve problems from Principia Mathematica (1910-13) written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. [1] [8]
In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt invented the Perceptron, which he claimed was “the first machine which is capable of having an original idea.” Though the machine was hounded by skeptics, it was later praised as the “foundations for all of this artificial intelligence.” [1] [9]
As computers became cheaper in the 1960s and 70s, AI programs such as Joseph Weizenbaum’s ELIZA flourished, and US government agencies including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began to fund AI-related research. But computers were still too weak to manage the language tasks researchers asked of them. Another influx of funding in the 1980s and early 90s furthered the research, including the invention of expert systems by Edward Feigenbaum and Joshua Lederberg. But progress again waned with a drop in government funding. [10]
In 1997, Gary Kasparov, reigning world chess champion and grand master, was defeated by IBM’s Deep Blue AI computer program, a huge step for AI researchers. More recently, advances in computer storage limits and speeds have opened new avenues for AI research and implementation, such as aiding in scientific research and forging new paths in medicine for patient diagnosis, robotic surgery, and drug development. [1] [10] [11] [12]
Now, artificial intelligence is used for a variety of everyday implementations including facial recognition software, online shopping algorithms, search engines, digital assistants like Siri and Alexa, translation services, automated safety functions on cars (and the promised self-driving cars of the future), cybersecurity, airport body scanning security, poker playing strategy, and fighting disinformation on social media, among others. [13] [58]
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media aids the spread of hate groups.
A Baylor University study examined Facebook hate groups focused on President Barack Obama and found a resurgence of racial slurs and stereotypes not seen in mainstream media in decades. A study of English-language Twitter posts found that around 10,000 tweets per day contained racial slurs, 30% of which were deemed derogatory. Social media can create a “‘radicalization echo chamber’ where followers reinforce for each other extremist propaganda and calls for violence,” says John Carlin, JD, Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department. The Christian Identity, a faction of the white supremacist group Aryan Nations, uses social media to recruit members , and Die Auserwahlten, a skinhead crew founded in Nebraska, was created by people who had met each other on social media.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Taxes:
Reagan’s “voodoo” economic policy, where tax cuts were believed to somehow generate tax revenues, failed to account for his administration’s excessive spending which increased from $591 billion in 1980 to $1.2 trillion in 1990. Reagan both increased and cut taxes. In 1980, middle-income families with children paid 8.2% in income taxes and 9.5% in payroll taxes. By 1988 their income tax was down to 6.6%, but payroll tax was up to 11.8%, a combined increase in taxes. Reagan pushed through Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years.
**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…
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.