query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
42
|
7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00004-000
|
Should fighting be allowed in hockey?
|
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Fighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.
|
34
|
df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00000-000
|
Are social networking sites good for our society?
|
Social Networking sites are a boon Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The popular website has made him a very rich man, but at what cost to human relationships? But they will strike a chord with parents and teachers who complain that many youngsters lack the ability to communicate or concentrate away from their screens. More than 150million use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, share photographs and videos and post regular updates of their movements and thoughts. A further six million have signed up to Twitter, the 'micro-blogging' service that lets users circulate text messages about themselves. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain. Girl Using Computer Experts are concerned children's online social interactions can 'rewire' the brain Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said. 'We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,' she told the Mail yesterday. 'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.' Professor Susan Greenfield Professor Susan Greenfield: Concerned Her comments echoed those she made during a House of Lords debate earlier this month. Then she argued that exposure to computer games, instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking sites could leave a generation with poor attention spans. 'I often wonder whether real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf,' she said. Lady Greenfield told the Lords a teacher of 30 years had told her she had noticed a sharp decline in the ability of her pupils to understand others. 'It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations,' she said. She pointed out that autistic people, who usually find it hard to communicate, were particularly comfortable using computers. 'Of course, we do not know whether the current increase in autism is due more to increased awareness and diagnosis of autism, or whether it can - if there is a true increase - be in any way linked to an increased prevalence among people of spending time in screen relationships. Surely it is a point worth considering,' she added. Psychologists have also argued that digital technology is changing the way we think. They point out that students no longer need to plan essays before starting to write - thanks to word processors they can edit as they go along. Satellite navigation systems have negated the need to decipher maps. A study by the Broadcaster Audience Research Board found teenagers now spend seven-and-a-half hours a day in front of a screen. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'
|
12
|
81e67f4b-2019-04-18T16:37:43Z-00002-000
|
Should birth control pills be available over the counter?
|
abortion My opponent has used the term dirty birdies.dirty birdie: A person who exhibits extreme perversion and an unbridled enjoyment for all things sexual. [1]My opponent has basically referred to every person's mother on this site as an extreme pervert because the only criteria that he provided was that they were not using birth control or a condom.Additionally he has not defined good. Let us look at some of the effects on women who have abortions:Physical ProblemsElevated risk of death: a 1997 government funded study in Finland, women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term. In addition, women who carry to term are only half as likely to die as women who were not pregnant. [2]Cervical, ovarian and liver cancer: Women with a history of one abortion face a 2.3 times higher risk of having cervical cancer, compared to women with no history of abortion. Women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of subsequent ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women may be linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage or to increased stress and the negative impact of stress on the immune system. [2]Uterine Perforations: Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed. [2]Cervical Lacerations: Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions...Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery, and complications of labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix. [2]Placenta Previa: Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor. [2]Labour Complications: Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two, or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61, and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks). Pre-term delivery increases the risk of neonatal death and handicaps. [2]Handicapped Newborns: Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns. [2]Ectopic Pregnancy: Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility. [2]PID: PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion. [2]Immediate complications: Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (20%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock...women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are for repeat aborters. [2]Increased rate for teenagers: Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage. [2]Lower General Health: In a survey of 1428 women researchers found that pregnancy loss, and particularly losses due to induced abortion, was significantly associated with an overall lower health. Multiple abortions correlated to an even lower evaluation of "present health." While miscarriage was detrimental to health, abortion was found to have a greater correlation to poor health. These findings support previous research which reported that during the year following an abortion women visited their family doctors 80% more for all reasons and 180% more for psychosocial reasons. The authors also found that "if a partner is present and not supportive, the miscarriage rate is more than double and the abortion rate is four times greater than if he is present and supportive. If the partner is absent the abortion rate is six times greater." [2]Psychological ProblemsRequirement of Psychological Treatment: A study of the medical records of 56,741 California Medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years...Most significant was the finding that 25% of women who had abortions made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. [2]Suicide:Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study (see figure at the right). They found that the mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000 but the rate for women following abortion was 34.7 per 100,000, three times higher. The suicide rate associated with birth, by contrast, was half the rate of all women and less than one-sixth the rate of suicide among women who had abortions...Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers. Numerous other studies have also revealed higher rates of suicide and suicide attempts associated with abortion. [2]Alcohol & Drugs: Over twenty studies have linked abortion to increased rates of drug and alcohol use. Abortion is significantly linked with a two fold increased risk of alcohol abuse among women. [2]Eating Disorders: For at least some women, post-abortion stress is associated with eating disorders such as binge eating, bulimia, and anorexia nervosa. [2]Sexual Dysfunction: Thirty to fifty percent of the women who experience difficulty adjusting to a past abortion report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of both short and long duration, beginning immediately after their abortions. These problems may include one or more of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general, or the development of a promiscuous life-style. [2]PTSD: While psychological reactions to abortion fall into many categories, some women experience all or some of they symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The lowest incidence rate of PTSD reported following abortion is 1.5%, which would translate to over 600,000 cases of abortion induced PTSD.Another study found that 14% of American women have all the symptoms of PTSD and attribute them to their abortions, with as many as 65% reporting some, but not all symptoms of PTSD. [2]Definition: Good: Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor [3]Thus given the many physical and psychological detriments to abortion it cannot be classified as good.[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com... [2] http://afterabortion.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
|
4
|
29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00001-000
|
Should corporal punishment be used in schools?
|
All schools should bring back corporal punishment We are debating corporal punishment. "As I said previously, research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement. This is a school study. [1] Anyhow, can my opponent give a substantive difference between corporal punishment at home and corporal punishment at school, whereby the deleterious effects of corporal punishment at home somehow transmute into positive effects when delivered by a teacher? "Then you cut and paste corporal punishment to reduce anti social behavior. That is not what a school would spank for. "Does my opponent doubt that antisocial behaviour occurs in schools, or does he think that it is not an infraction of school discipline? Or is he claiming that schools who practice corporal punishment only do so for sociable violations? My opponent has yet to show that school shoootings and lack of corporal punishment are linked, especially bearing in the mind the two problems I pointed out that he has to overcome. "I've never heard a child justify hitting another child by saying that it's OK because mom and dad hit me. "Unlikely that they do justify it at all. However, it has been shown that corporal punishment leads to increased aggression in children. "Properly done, spanking causes no lasting physical damage. "The issue is psychological damage. My opponent raises concerns about correlative studies. Studies linking smoking and lung cancer are correlative. We could argue that people who are prone to lung cancer are more likely to smoke. However, we also have a better causal mechanism that explains the link. We understand the concept of carcinogens. It is the same for corporal punishment. There is a link between spanking and increased aggression. We could argue that children who are likely to become more aggressive are more annoying and are more likely to get spanked, but there is a body of theory that explains spanking as a causal factor. Aside from violence being known to be a stressor, corporal punishment itself is understood to be a stressor. [2]In a summary of scientific research, Elizabeth Gershoff explains some of the causal mechanisms:"Social cognitive theory suggests that children who are hit by their parents (and thus physically hurt by them) will develop a tendency to make hostile attributions about others that, in turn, increase the likelihood that they will behave inappropriately in social interactions. Finally, attribution theorists argue that, because corporal punishment uses physical force, its use by parents constitutes an external source to which children can attribute their compliance; corporal punishment does not promote internalized reasons for behaving appropriately. Children who have not internalized the reasons for behaving pro-socially thus have no reason to behave appropriately when their parents are not there to provide an external reason for doing so. "[3]Of the association between behavioural and emotional difficulties,"There is significant theoretical and empirical justification for assuming that at least some important part of this association is due to the causal impact of corporal punishment"[2]The use of Corporal Punishment has been associated with anger, fear, and humiliation in the child. Also of concern is the issue of trust between children and adults, and the child's ability to deal with situations without resorting to violence. [4]There is a link between corporal punishment and later wife beating. We could argue that children who are likely to beat their wives when they grow up are worse behaved than other children, but we have a body of theory that explains corporal punishment as a causal factor. Importantly, even if causation were not established, corporal punishment is ineffective at preventing children from growing up to be wife beaters, alcoholics, depressives, and suicide risks. So what is the use of continuing the practice? "would it mean that all forms of corporal punishment cause emotional and behavioral problems or only the more severe, abusive forms like hitting on the head or boxing the ears? "How is one form of attack abuse and not the other? What is "acceptable" violence against defenceless children? Anyhow, several of the studies I have presented have been specifically on spanking. Strassberg et al. (1994) found that milder forms of spanking in the home correlated with aggressive school behavior to a significant degree, and that child abuse correlated with aggressive behavior at school to an even more significant degree. Any child who had been abusively "hit" even once in their life was excluded from the "spanked" group, yet the correlation between spanking and school aggression remained significant. [5] A 2006 review found that"Research on the long-term effects of physical punishment are consistent, and overwhelmingly negative over a wide variety of child development outcomes. "[6] Lazelere has no case. "Parents that love their children and are involved in their lives may use spanking, but they will never use spanking in a way that harms their children. "My opponent confuses intention with outcome. However,"Rather than serve as a buffer, high parental support may create a context in which the child experiences incidences of physical punishment as inconsistent, confusing, and especially distressing. "[2]My opponent's hyperlink is broken. Corporal punishmment is not more effective even in the short term than other measures. [3][7] There is no case for it at all. [1] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385–393. [2] Turner, H. , and Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal Punishment as a Stressor among Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58 (1):155-166. Order (CV10) . http://www.unh.edu...[3] . http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...[4] . http://csmh.umaryland.edu...[5] Strassberg, Z. ; Dodge, K. A. ; Petit, G. S. & Bates, J. E. 1994. "Spanking in the Home and Children's Subsequent Aggression Toward Kindergarten Peers. " Development and Psychopathology, 6:445-461. [6] . http://www.msd.govt.nz...[7] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
|
48
|
f12d8c0e-2019-04-18T18:47:16Z-00003-000
|
Should the voting age be lowered?
|
Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.
|
20
|
ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00000-000
|
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
|
MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! My opponent has regrettably forfeited his side of round 3, thus has dropped my entire case. Thus, you're free to extend the content of round 1 and 2 to this round. Since my opponent has provided no objections to my argument, I strongly urge that you vote in favor of the contender. Thank you.
|
19
|
7da799d-2019-04-18T14:26:21Z-00002-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
Should gay marriage be tolerated I accept and argue that gar marriage should be tolerated. Thing is people should not make a big deal out of gay people. Love is everything, no matter age or height or gender. Our society imagines us to think about a perfect world with taller, older men and shorter, younger women. No, our world was made with no guidelines on this. Even if this is a sin, we do not even know whether the bible is really, moreover if christianity exists (this goes to an another debate, hence I will not talk about it further) You should let people decide their own rights and life and we should not interfere with any of that. You talk about a danger to public health. I don't see any reasoning in this and should be dropped. It is destructive to families, my opponents say. Just because they like another gender does not mean it will always destruct. Their children are their parents lifeline, there are bound to be forgiveness in any chances or years. Homosexuality is not always why it destructs families. There is child abuse, death, suicide, abuse to wife, enslavement, etc. This is just a very small portion that destructs families. However this small portion is not why our families destruct Thanks
|
4
|
1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00003-000
|
Should corporal punishment be used in schools?
|
corporal punishment Should corporal punishment be be banned or kept in schools, daycares, etc? I am a student and I think that with the way children/teens act in today's society they need to be disciplined in some way shape or form. Give me your opinions, should we bring it back or not? If we have more punishment in schools and daycares just think how much more respect kids would give their parents. I think it should be brought back, and kept .
|
17
|
c916ec83-2019-04-18T15:34:19Z-00000-000
|
Should recreational marijuana be legal?
|
The existence of Telepathy So I have read many links regarding ESP, which usually talks about a pineal gland as the physical part of our brains which allows us a "sixth sense". Since we know that our minds are made up of the brain as a whole, and that the brain follows the laws of physics as well, I would like to look at this discussion from an entirely different perspective. http://m.youtube.com... Stephen Hawking- The meaning of life. On the other hand, http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.pbs.org... may provide you with a little bit more information on evolution as seems to be his main focus. Since Sheldon Drake seems to talk about the laws of nature as nothing more than a "habit" please allow me to exaggerate on that subject. You may find this information useful! "We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics..." -Richard Feynman. http://vimeo.com... Stephen Hawking's Universe- The Story of Everything (2010). Our Current views on the motion of bodies date back to Galileo and Newton. Previously, views on the motion of bodies dated back to Aristotle. Sir Issac Newton wondered, why do objects move, why do they stop, and why things fall to the earth. Newton, claimed it hit him when an apple fell from a tree. He proposed that objects are pulled by a force in which he called gravity. This was the start of a revolution in science. http://touch.dailymotion.com... Stephen Hawking's Grand Design- The Key To The Cosmos Aristotle stated that the natural state of a body was at rest, and that it only moved if driven by force. This followed that a heavy body should fall at a higher velocity than a lighter one, because it would have a greater pull to the earth. Furthermore, he proposed the laws of the universe could be worked out by thought, and observation was not necessary. As a result, those who accepted the Aristotelian tradition never bothered to see whether bodies of different weights did fall at different rates of speed. However, Galileo Galilei, demonstrated this belief to be inaccurate with an experiment. To explain, he rolled balls of different weights down a smooth slope, and found the bodies increase their speed at the same rate. galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu... In this experiment, Galileo found, that a body will increase it's velocity per distance fallen: X=(a*t")/2. These measurements were used by Newton as a basis in his laws of motion. In 1687, Newton made a publication, "Principia Mathematica" in which he stated that a body not acted on by any force, moves in the same direction at the same velocity. However, when acted on by a force, a body will change it's speed proportional to the force. In addition, he discovered that every body attracts every other body with a force that is proportional to the mass of each body. Therefore, it was governed by a few concepts, the mass of the objects and their distance apart. http://www.physicsclassroom.com... http://plato.stanford.edu... An example would be provided by a car: the greater the engine power, the greater the acceleration, but the heavier the car, the smaller the acceleration for the same engine. On the other hand, a lead weight would fall faster than a feather, but only because it is slowed down by air resistance: F grav-F air/m2=a. Concurrently, David R Scott demonstrated that a feather and a lead weight does fall at the same rate on the moon, where there is no air resistance. Therefore, a heavier body will have twice the force of gravity pulling: F grav=(G*m1*m2)/d", but will also have twice the mass. According to Newton's second law, these two effects will cancel each other, so the acceleration will be the same in all cases: F grav/m2=(G*m1)/d"=a. http://m.youtube.com... Newton's laws of gravity would predict the motion of bodies within our solar system with great accuracy. To emphasize, his law states that the gravitational attraction of a star is exactly one fourth that of a similar star half the distance. On the other hand, if the law were that the gravitational attraction of a star, decreased or increased more rapidly with distance, the orbits of planets would not be elliptical, would spiral in to the sun, or escape it's orbit within the solar system. However, this new view of absolute rest did not set well with Newton. To explain, his measurements indicated that one could not give an event an absolute position in space. Furthermore, Newton believed in an absolute God, and refused to accept the implications of his own laws. Both Aristotle and Newton believed in absolute time. To explain, they believed two individuals could unambiguously measure the interval between two events and reach the same measurement. Furthermore, space and time were not yet connected as we now understand it to be. Eleven years earlier than Newton's publication in 1676, Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Roemer, observed that the moons did not orbit around Jupiter at a constant rate, as one might expect. Furthermore, he noticed the lunar eclipses of Jupiter appeared much later the further our distance from Jupiter. Thus, he argued that light travels at a high but finite speed. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu... Roemer's measurements indicated that light travels at 140,000 miles per second. However, a proper theory of the propagation of light did not come until 1865, when British physicist James Clerk Maxwell began to study a strange realm of science, the connection between electricity and magnetism. Furthermore, he succeeded in unifying the partial theories used to describe the forces of electricity and magnetism. For Maxwell, it was quite simple, move a magnet toward a wire and you will cause electricity to flow through the wire. Put electricity through a wire and it will act like a magnet and deflect a compass. He connected electricity, magnetism, and light in a few simple equations, known as Maxwell's laws. http://www.askamathematician.com... These laws govern everything from the Auroras that dance across the night sky to the modern electrical and communications technology that powers the planet. Maxwell's equations predicted that there could be wavelike disturbances in the combined electromagnetic fields, and these would travel at high speeds, like ripples in a pond. To emphasize, if the wavelength of these waves is a meter or more, they are radio waves, microwaves are a few centimeters, visible light forty to eighty millionths of a centimeter, and even shorter wavelengths are known as gamma rays. He soon concluded that light was also an electromagnetic wave. In addition, Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. However, Newton's theory had gotten rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was relative to. This lead to the experiment by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887. To explain, they predicted that just as water waves are waves that travel in water, and sound waves are waves that travel through a medium, light waves are waves that travel through something in which they called, "luminiferous ether". If this were true, then it should effect the speed of light, and it should be measurable. However, during the experiment, they found no difference in the speed of light no matter which direction they looked. As a result, they concluded that this ether does not exist, and were embarrassed to report they had been wrong. But, this was one of the most important mistakes in the history of science. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu... In 1905, Albert Einstein pointed out in his paper, called relativity, that the idea of ether was unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. To emphasize, he proposed that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers. To explain, Einstein, developed a thought experiment, he asked, "If I were running along side a beam of light, what I would see?" It would only make since traveling at approximately 186,000 miles per second, a beam of light would appear stationary. Later he found that if he was traveling at the speed of light, it would appear to dash away at the speed of light relative to his own point of view. He imagined a train from two points of view, on the train, and a stationary position from outside the train. The observer on the train observes the light on the train car reaching the end of the car at the speed of light. However, a viewer from the trackside see's the end of the train moving toward the beam of light, therefore has a smaller distance to travel. As a result, this idea had some remarkable consequences, most notably the equivalence of mass and energy, and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. To explain why, the energy which an object has due to it's motion will add to it's mass, thus making it harder to increase it's speed. Therefore, an object would never reach the speed of light, because by then it's mass would have become infinite, and it would take an infinite amount of energy to get there. http://www.pitt.edu... The special Theory of Relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers, but it was inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity. To explain, Newton's theory of gravity explained that objects are attracted with a force dependent on the distance between them. Finally, in 1915, he developed what is known as the general theory of relativity. To emphasize, he suggested that spacetime is not flat, as previously assumed: it is curved, or "warped", by the distribution of mass and energy in it. In addition, gravity can be thought of as a hole in a body of water that stretches out forever, this hole would cause water to drain away effecting anything that falls within its distortion. Furthermore, light too would be effected by the distortion in spacetime which was confirmed later by Arthur Eddington in 1919. "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."- Einstein http://www.aip.org... Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a point of gravity, such as the earth. To explain why, there is a relation between the energy of light and it's frequency: the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travel upward, it loses energy and it's frequency goes down. To someone high up, it would appear that everything below was taking longer to happen, and vice versa. 1962, a pair if very accurate clocks were mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower, and was found to run at two different speeds, in agreement with general relativity. The difference in the speed of clocks at different heights above the earth is now of considerable practical importance, with the advent of very accurate navigation systems based on signals from satellites. If one ignores the predictions of general relativity, the positions that one calculated would be wrong by several miles. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au... Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. Concurrently, this was true even of the special theory of relativity. To emphasize, bodies moved, forces attracted and repelled, but time and space simply continued, unaffected. However, according to the general theory of relativity, space and time are dynamic quantities: when a body moves or a force acts, it affects the curvature of spacetime- and in turn, the structure of spacetime affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. In conclusion, space and time not only affects, but is also affected by everything that occurs in the universe. Therefore, the old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed, could continue to exist, was forever replaced by the notion of dynamic, expanding universe that seemed to begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the near future. The Expanding universe. Most stars are visible to the naked eye within a few hundred lights years from us. In fact, these stars appear spread all over the night sky, but are particularly concentrated in one band, which we call the Milky Way. As long ago as 1750, some astronomers suggested that the appearance of the Milky Way could be explained if most of the visible stars lie in a single disklike configuration, one example of what we now call a spiral galaxy. Only a few decades later, the astronomer Sir William Herschel confirmed this idea by painstakingly cataloging the positions and distances of vast numbers of stars. Our modern picture of the universe dates back to only 1924, when American astronomer Edwin Hubble demonstrated that ours was not the only galaxy. Instead, there were many others, with vast tracts of empty space between them. In order to prove this, he needed to determine the distances to these galaxies, which are so far away. However, Hubble was forced to use indirect methods to measure the distances. For example, the brightness of a star depended on two factors, how much light it radiates (it's luminosity), and it's distance from us. For nearby stars, we can measure their apparent brightness and their distance, therefore we can work out their luminosity. On the other hand, if we knew the luminosity of stars in other galaxies, we could work out their distance by measuring their apparent brightness. Hubble noted that certain types of stars always have the same luminosity when they are near enough for us to measure; therefore, he argued, if we found such stars in another galaxy, we could assume they had the same luminosity- and so calculated the distance to that galaxy. If we could do this for a number of stars in the same galaxy, and our calculations always gave the same distance, we could be fairly confident of our estimate. Using this method, Hubble worked out the distances to nine different galaxies. With modern telescopes, we have determined, some hundred thousand million galaxies, each containing some hundred thousand million stars. Stars are so far away that they appear to be just pin points in the sky, and we cannot determine their size or shape. So how can we tell different types of stars apart? For the vast majority of stars, there is only one character feature that we can " the color of their light. Newton discovered that if light from the sun pass through a triangular-shaped piece of glass, called a prism, it breaks up into it's component color (it's spectrum) as in a rainbow. By focusing on an individual star or galaxy, one can similarly observe the spectrum of the light from that star or galaxy. Different stars have different spectra, but relative brightness of different colors is always exactly what one would expect to find in the light emitted by an object that is glowing red hot. The light emitted by any opaque object that is glowing red hot has a characteristic spectrum that depends on it's temperature " a thermal spectrum. This means we can tell a star's temperature from the spectrum of it's light. Moreover, we find that very specific colors from the star's spectra, and these missing colors may vary from star to star. Since we know that each chemical element absorbs a characteristic set of very specific colors, by matching these to those that are missing from a star's spectrum, we can determine exactly which elements are present in the star's atmosphere. In the 1920's, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own galaxy, but they were all shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Visible light consist of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven millionths of a metre. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously, the wavelength of waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted. Suppose now that the source of light starts moving toward us. When the source the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between waves crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means the wavelength we receive is shorter, than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelengths we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore this means stars moving away from us, will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue shifted. This relationship between wavelengths and speed, which is called the Doppler effect, is an everyday experience. Imagine your standing on a race track and a car passes you by, you might notice the pitch of the engine increases as it approaches you and decreases as it passes you by. The behavior of light or radio waves is similar. Indeed, the police make use if the Doppler effect to measure the speed of cars by measuring the wavelength of pulses of radio waves reflected off of them. In the following years, Hubble spent his time cataloging the distances of other galaxies, and observing their spectra. At that time, people expected the galaxies to be moving around quite randomly, and so expected to find as many blue-shifted spectra as red-shifted ones. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appeared red shifted: nearly all were moving away from us (recession). More surprising still was the finding Hubble published in 1929: even the size of a galaxy's distance from us. Or, in other words, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away! And that meant the universe could not be static, as everyone had previously thought, but is in fact expanding between the different is growing all the time. The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century. With hindsight, it is easy to wonder why no one had thought of it before. Newton, and others, should have realized that a static universe would soon start to contract under the influence of gravity. But supposed instead that the universe was expanding. If it was expanding fairly slowly, the force of gravity would cause it to stop expanding and then to start contracting. However, if it was expanding at a more critical rate, gravity would never be strong enough to stop it, and the universe would expand forever. This is a bit like what happens when one fires a rocket upward from the surface of the earth. If it has a fairly low speed, gravity will eventually stop the rocket and it will start falling back. On the other hand, if it has more than a certain critical speed (about seven miles per second) gravity will not be strong enough to pull it back, so it will keep going away forever. This behavior of the universe could have been predicted from newton's theory of gravity at any time in the nineteenth century, or even the late seventh centuries. Yet so strong was the belief in a static universe that it persisted into the early twentieth century. Even Einstein, when he formed the general theory of relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make it possible, introducing the so-called cosmological constant into his equations. Einstein introduced a new, "antigravity" force, which unlike other forces, did not come from any particular force but was built in to the very fabric of spacetime. He claimed that spacetime had a built in tendency to to expand, and this could be made to balance exactly the attraction of all the universe, so that a static universe would result. Only one man, it seems, was willing to take general relativity at face value, and while Einstein and other physicists were looking for ways to avoid general relativity's predictions of a non-static universe, the Russian physicist and mathematician. Alexander Friedmann instead set out explaining it. Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in whichever direction we look, and this would be true if we were observing the universe anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble's discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found. http://www.atnf.csiro.au... The assumption that the universe looks exactly the same in every direction is clearly not true in reality. For example, as we have seen, the other stars form a distinct band of light across the night sky, called the Milky Way. But if we look at distant galaxies, there seems to be more or less the same number of them. So the universe does seem to be roughly the same in every direction, provided one views it on a large scale compared to the distances between them, and ignores the differences on small scales. For a long time, this was sufficient justification for Friedmann's assumptions " as a rough approximation to the real universe. But more recently, a lucky accident uncovered the fact that Friedmann's assumptions is in fact a remarkably accurate description of our universe. In 1965, two American physicists at Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were testing a very sensitive microwave detector. Penzias and Wilson were worried when their detector was picking up more noise than it ought to. First they discovered bird droppings in their detector and checked for other possible malfunctions, but soon ruled these out. They knew that any noise from in the atmosphere would be stronger when the detector was not pointing straight up than when it was, because light rays travel through much more atmosphere when received from horizon than when received from directly overhead. The extra noise was the same which ever direction the detector was pointing, so it must come from outside the atmosphere. It was the same day and night and throughout the year, even though the earth was rotating on it's axis and orbiting around the sun. This showed that the radiation must come from beyond the Solar System, and even from beyond the galaxy, as otherwise it would vary as the movement of earth pointed the detector in different directions. In fact, we know that radiation must have traveled to us across most of the observable universe, and since it appears to be the same in different directions, the universe must also be the same in every direction, if only on a large scale. We know that whichever direction we look, the noise never varies by more than a tiny fraction: so Penzias and Wilson had unwittingly stumbled across a remarkably accurate confirmation of Friedman's first assumption. However because the universe is not exactly the same in every direction, but only on average on a large scale, the microwaves can not be exactly the same in every direction either. There have to be slight variations between different directions. These were first detected in 1992 by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, or COBE, at a level of about one part in a hundred thousand. Small as these variations are they are very important. At roughly the same time as Penzias and Wilson were investigating noise in their detector, two American physicists at a nearby Princeton University, Bob Dicke and Jim Peebles, were also taking an interest in microwaves. They were working on a suggestion, made by George Gamow (once a student of Alexander Friedmann), that the early universe should have been very hot and dense, glowing white hot. Dicke and Peebles argued that we should still be able to see a glow of the early universe, because light from very distant parts of it would only just be reaching us now. However, the expansion of the universe meant that this light should be so greatly red-shifted that it appear to us as microwave radiation. Dicke and Peebles were preparing to look for this when Penzias and Wilson heard about their work and realized they had already found it. For this, Penzias and Wilson was awarded the Nobel prize in 1978. Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same in whichever direction we look might suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all of the other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe universe might look the same in every direction from any galaxy, too. This as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption.However we have no evidence to verify Friedmann's second assumption- it is commonly accepted on the ground of modesty. Based on these assumptions, he predicted exactly what Edwin Hubble found in 1924. Friedmann's model can be compared to a balloon with a number of spots painted on it being steadily blown up- as the balloon expands, the distance between any two spots increase, but no spot can be said to be the center of expansion. In Friedmann's model the galaxies were also moving apart proportional to the distance between them. Thus, the red shift of a galaxy should be proportional to it's distance from us- exactly what Hubble found. Despite the success of his model and his prediction of Hubble's observation, Friedmann's work remained largely unknown in the West until similar models were discovered in 1935 by American physicist Howard Robertson and British mathematician Arthur Walker, In response to Hubble's discovery of the uniform expansion of the universe. Although Friedmann found only one, there are three models that obey: 1) The universe is expanding sufficiently slowly that the gravitation between the different galaxies causes expansion to slow down and eventually stop- thus the universe would eventually collapse. In this model, space is bent in on itself, like the surface of the earth (and is therefore finite in extent). 2) It is expanding so rapidly that the gravitation can never stop it. In this model, space is bent like the surface of a saddle (and is therefore infinite). 3) The universe is expanding just fast enough to avoid recollapse. In this model, space is flat (and therefore space is also infinite). But which model describes our universe? Will the universe stop expanding and start contracting, or will it expand forever? To answer this question we need to know the present rate of expansion of the universe and it's present average density. If the density is less than a certain critical value, determined by the rate of expansion, the gravitational attraction will be too weak to halt the expansion. If the density is greater than the critical value, gravity will stop the expansion at some point in the future and cause the universe to recollapse. We can determine the present rate of expansion by measuring the velocities at which other galaxies are moving away from us, using the Doppler's effect. This can be done very accurately. However, the distance to the galaxies are not very well known because we can only measure them indirectly. So all we know is the universe is expanding by between 5% and 10% every thousand million years. However, our uncertainty about the present average density of the universe is even greater. If we add up all the stars that we can see in our galaxy and other galaxies, the total is less than one hundredth of the amount required to halt the expansion of the universe, even for the lowest estimate of the rate of expansion. Our galaxy and other galaxies, however, must contain a large amount of "dark matter" that we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of it's gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars in the galaxies. Moreover, most galaxies are found in clusters, and we can similarly infer the presence of yet more dark matter in between the galaxies in these clusters by it's effects on the motion of galaxies. When we add up all this dark matter, we still only get about one tenth of the amount required to halt expansion. However we can not exclude the possibility that there might be some other form of matter, distributed almost uniformly throughout the universe, that we have not yet detected and might still raise the average density of the universe up to the critical value needed to halt the expansion. The present evidence therefore suggests that the universe will probably expand forever, but all we can really be sure of is that if the universe is going to recollapse, it won't do so for at least anther ten thousand million years, since it has already been expanding for at least that long. This should not unduly worry us: by that time, unless we have colonized beyond the Solar System, mankind will long since have died out, extinguished along with our sun! All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that at some time in the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have to be infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space time is flat, so they break down at the singularity, where curvature of space time is infinite. This means one could not use them to determine what would happen afterwards, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as if the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had to be a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was called the steady state theory. It was suggested in 1948 by two refugees from Nazi-occupied Austria, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, together with a Briton, Fred Hoyle, who had worked with them on the development of radar during the war. The idea was that as galaxies moved away from each other, new galaxies were continually forming in the gaps in between, from new matter that was being continually created. The universe would therefore look roughly the same at all times as well at all points of space. The steady state theory required a modification of general relativity to allow for the continual creation of matter, but the rate that was involved was so low that it was not in conflict with experiment. The theory was a good scientific theory, in the sense it was simple and it made definite predictions that could be tested by observation. One of these predictions was that a number of galaxies or similar objects in any given volume of space should be the same wherever and whenever we look in the universe. In the late 1950's and early 1960's a survey of sources of radio waves from outer space was carried out at Cambridge by a group of astronomers led by Martin Ryle (who had also worked with Bond I, Gold, and Hoyle on radar during the war). The Cambridge group showed that most of the radio sources must lie outside our galaxy (indeed many of them could be identified with other galaxies) and also that there were many more weak sources than strong one's. They interpreted the weak sources as being the more distant ones, and the stronger ones as being nearer. Then there appeared to be less common sources per unit volume of space for the nearby sources than for the distant ones. This could mean that we are at the center of a great region in the universe in which the sources are fewer than elsewhere. Alternatively, it could mean that the sources were more numerous in the past, at the time that the radio waves left on their journey to us, than they are now. Either explanation contradicted the predictions of the steady state theory. Moreover, the discovery of the microwave radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 also indicated that the universe must have been much more denser in the past. The steady state theory therefore had to be abandoned. Another theory, in response to Friedman's model stated that not everything had to go back to a single point but really close together. However this model was supported by Friedman's expanding universe. In 1965 British mathematician and physicist, Roger Penrose showed that a star collapsing under it's gravity is trapped in a region who's surface eventually shrinks to zero size. And, since the surface of the region shrinks to zero, so too it's volume. All of the matter in the star will be compressed to a region of zero volume, so the density of matter and the curvature of space-time becomes infinite. His theorem had shown that any star must end in a singularity; the time reverse argument showed that any Friedmann-like expanding universe must have begun with a singularity. Aristotle believed that all of matter in the universe was made up of four basic elements- earth air, fire, and water. These elements were acted upon by two forces; gravity, and levity. In addition he believed that matter was continuous, that is, one could cut a piece of matter into smaller and smaller bits without limit. On the other hand, the Greeks, such as Democritus, held that matter was inherently made up of large numbers of Atoms. (Meaning "indivisible" to the Greeks.) For Centuries the arguments continued without supporting evidence on either side. Later, in 1803 British chemist and physicist John Dalton pointed out that the fact that chemical compounds always combined in certain proportions could be explained by the grouping together of atoms to form units called molecules. However, this argument was not settled in favor of atomists until 1905, by Albert Einstein. Before his paper on special relativity (not to be confused with the general theory of relativity) Einstein pointed out that what was called the Browning motion- the irregular random motion of small particles of dust suspended in liquid- could be explained as the effects of atoms of the liquid colliding with liquid particles. By this time there were already suspicions that these atoms were not, after all, indivisible. Four notable figures, known for the discovery of various subatomic particles are listed with attachments available. Trinity College, J.J. Thomson. http://www.biography.com... 1911, Ernest Rutherford. http://www.biography.com... Cambridge, James Chadwick. http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk... Before 1969, it was thought that protons and neutrons were elementary. However, experiments indicated that, they too were made up of smaller particles- called quarks. Caltech physicist Murray Gell-Mann. https://the-history-of-the-atom.wikispaces.com... http://m.particleadventure.org... So the question is: What are the truly elementary particles, the basic building blocks from which everything is made? Since the wavelength of light is much larger than the size of an atom, we cannot hope to "look" at the parts of an atom in the ordinary way. Quantum physics tells us that all particles are in fact waves, and the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the wavelength of the corresponding wave. (http://www.pitt.edu...). So the best answer we can give to our question depends on how high energy a particle we have at our disposal, because this determines how small a length scale we can look. These particles are measured in units called electron volts. (https://www.princeton.edu...). In the nineteenth century, when the only particles that people knew how to use were the low energies of a few electron volts generated by chemical reactions such as burning, it was thought that atoms were the smallest units. In Rutherford's experiment, the alpha-particles had energies of millions of electron volts. More recently, we have learned how to use electromagnetic fields to give particles of at first millions and then thousands of millions of electron volts. And so we know that particles that were thought to be "elementary" are, in fact, made up of smaller particles. Using wave/particle duality, everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles. These particles have a property called spin. One way to think of spin is to imagine the particles spinning on it's axis. However this can be misleading, because quantum mechanics tells us that particles do not have any well-defined axis. (http://spinningparticles.com...). The matter particles obey what is called the Pauli's exclusion principle. This was first discovered in 1925 by Australian physicist Wolfgang Pauli- for which he received the Nobel prize in 1945. (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...). A proper theory of the electron and other 1/2 spin particles did not come until 1928, proposed by Paul Dirac. (http://www.nobelprize.org...), and ( http://www.pha.jhu.edu...). We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. In quantum physics, the forces or interactions between matter particles are all supposed to be carried by particles of integer spin" 0, 1, or 2, which, as we see, give rise to forces between the matter particles. What happens is that a matter particle, such as an electron or a quark, emits a force carrying particle. The recoil from this emission changes the velocity of the matter particle. This collision changes the velocity of the second particle, just as if there had been a force between the two matter particles. It is an important property of the force carrying particles that they do not obey the exclusion principle. This means that there is no limit to the number that can be exchanged, and so they can give rise to a strong force. However, if the force carrying particles have a high mass, it will be difficult to produce and exchange them over large distances. So the force they carry will only have a short range. On the other hand, if the force-carrying particles have no mass of their own, the forces will be long range. For more information see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://hubblesite.org... https://www.princeton.edu... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://grandunificationtheory.org.... http://m.youtube.com... http://whystringtheory.com...
|
13
|
6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00003-000
|
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
|
Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels I affirm that alternative energy is the future of the world we live in. Alternative energy should replace fossil fuel use because it is saving our precious planet and cost less money in the long run. Some argue that the technology isn't advanced but I know the tech is there because we are seeing smart companies move towards renewable supplies.
|
3
|
a4067850-2019-04-18T18:38:07Z-00003-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
Once and for all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a conspiracy 1) Inside traders? The reason that there was an extraordinary amount of betting against United Airlines was because of a labor contract negotiation that collapsed. This would mean that many pilots and employees would go on strike costing the airline a crapload of money, so It would make sense that people would bet against an airline if they thought it would lose millions of dollars in the next few weeks. After the attacks the stocks went down? No duh they would. If 4 passenger airliners were hijacked and crashed then that would scare the crap out of people into NOT FLYING. The number of people who lew on airplanes from August to September of 2001 dropped almost by half which cost airlines a ton of money because they just lost half of their source of revenue.... 2) The huge gaping hole left in the world largest office building may hint that the crash was very large. Also there were renovations that day because those renovations involved the removing of asbestos from the building, so yeah you might not want to come into work that day. It wasnt that the portion of the Pentagon was completely empty when it was attacked, more than 120 people were working in the Pentagon and died when the plane hit. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) So they made a mistake about which hand he uses big deal its one minor mistake. As for the reason why he wasnt singled out for being wanted for 9/11, that is because he was instead declared wanted for "Murder of U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Attack on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death" They already had plenty of reasons for his capture http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4) WTC tower 7 sustained very heavy damage to the roof and side after the collapse of the North Tower. The claim that news agencies reported it collapsed a half hour before it happened was a misunderstanding because they were referring to how firefighters were pulled from the building two hours before because fire marshals FEARED it would collapse. The names of the hijackers were very common names in the Arabic World, not everyone has a completely unique name you know. The claim that FBI didnt know who they were or if there were any is pure bullsh*t because telephone calls between many organizations and flight attendants aboard the hijacked flights. The flight attendants identified which seats they came from and accurately described how they looked and later the identities of the men who purchased tickets for those seats were identified and sure enough were traced back to Al-Qaeda. WTC did receive some media attention, but it was not considered an important victory for America because if you looked to the left there were still two massive holes that used to be the site of a much bigger symbol of American pride Maine had much lower security allowing the to sneak in while they were armed, something they might have had trouble with in far larger airports. The Maine to Boston flights were crucial because those planes were later refueled for long distance flights to the west coast meaning that they would be full of fuel when the terrorists crashed them into the towers. By the way the US did not have any protocol for using military force against hijacked airliners, and we still dont. The Secret service didnt know that the US was indeed under attack until after the second plane hit the world trade center. Also the attacks were centered in New York so they had no reason to believe that a US attack in Florida was imminent. The attacks were by planes so the idea that one of them could be hijacked and then flown into one of thousands of elementary schools and it would be the one the president was in is ludicrous. furthermore it wasnt national attention that Bush was in Florida at the time, or even in an elementary school. By the way Bush had his own reasons if he didnt want to freak out the children fine, it was his call. You may have done something different but thats just your opinion. The idea that his not immediate reaction to the attacks is "the smoking guns of smoking guns" is rather sad since you say that as a statement instead of analyzing his move. Osama did not directly have anything to do with 9/11. But he claimed responsibility for the attacks on many occasions, claimed the attacks were justified, claimed that it was time for holy war with the west, denounced our ties to Israel and stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, and was head of the organization behind the attacks. We had more than enough reasons to go after him after 9/11 Molten steel impossible? condense a 120+ story building into the ground and that gives you a hell of a lot of pressure. That combined with the already burning fires could easily melt steel and keep it molten for a long time. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com... How did a passport survive? it wasnt just a passport that survived there were huge amounts of passenger belongings that survived the crash. And the plane didnt burst into flames first, it smashed into a skyscraper and then exploded. Photos withheld? Many photos were requested to be classified right after the attack, but declassification is a process where older material is judged for declassification first. the Photos are just at the back of that line, theyll come out in time dont you worry :) United 93 didnt vaporize completely, it plowed into the ground last registered at more than 400+ mph which destroyed the fuselage. There was lots of evidence found from the crash site including black boxes, pieces of the airplane, luggage, etc. Now consider this, The Con has not provided any explanation for what possible conspiracy lies at hand, he has only cited inconsistencies in independent sources about the attacks and use those mistakes as "proof" that there is a conspiracy. If a conspiracy does exist though, it would have to be a collaborative effort from the NYFD, NYPD, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, FAA, NORAD, American Society of Civil Engineers, FEMA, CIA, FBI, NYC Port Authority, Everyone in the Pentagon (at the time of the crash and after), the 1600 widows & widowers (and no money wouldn't shut all of them up), the Media (US Mainstream, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.), the Photographers (from all over the world), NY Governor Pataki, all of the NYC Scrap Yards, Structural Engineers Worldwide, Installers of the Demolition Devices into the buildings (and there would have had to been hundreds of them), Airphone employees who took calls from passengers, Relatives and Friends of passengers on the airplanes who took calls from them, PBS NOVA, all affected Insurance Companies.... and that's just off the top of my head The idea that there is a 9/11 conspiracy is a web of outlandish ideas from people who hate looking at facts http://911review.org...
|
45
|
5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00004-000
|
Should the penny stay in circulation?
|
Drugs Should Stay Illegal So far my opponent has: -Made claims irrelevant to the debate -Stated his opinion -Made no legitimate argument If Pro keeps this up, there is no way he can win this debate.
|
14
|
3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00002-000
|
Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
|
Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Birth control is a "free will" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of "free-will sexual intercourse" and "free-will reproductive suppression" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.
|
6
|
f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00003-000
|
Is a college education worth it?
|
Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation RE: What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. I don't doubt these statistics and agree that it is probably true one with a college degree earns more than the amount a high school graduate can earn. It is beneficial for society as a whole to earn a college degree rather than without. However, in the context of this debate it is important not only to ensure that millennials are not being exploited by college degrees, but that they are using them in alignment with their core values/ ambitions, for higher education to be worth it for them. Therefore, the fact that one can earn more than a high school graduate is only a good thing for millennials given that: P1: Millennials aim to utilise university to generate the most income The millennial generation can be characterised as being 'interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns', helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that 'money is the best measure of success', in contrast to 78% of the total population (2). Hence, if most the millennial generation are not pursuing high income earnings directly this point is not enough alone to argue the worth of a college degree for millennials. RE: College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. 'there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in.' P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) 'this (college debt) is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.' I agree with the latter, but disagree in the former as I believe the fact that con agrees this issue can be solved by making college tuition free reinforces my point that college education needs reform (I would say the total eradication of fees is considered serious reform) P3: There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don't even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. Abraham Lincoln himself says 'if you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done…it is a small matter whether you read with any one or not; I did not read with anyone...Always bear in mind your own resolution to succeed is more important than anything' (4) P4: A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). RE: College education helps you go into a career you really want I admire those who know what they want in a career and go after it. I agree that a college education may help you reach there – having a college education is perfectly fine here. Especially if you know you want to be a teacher, doctor, engineer etc. What I have a problem with is many young people do not know what they truly want. We are characterised as the 'indecisive generation' because we have so many more options than previous generations available to us. By 2010 nearly 60% of employed millennials had already switched their career at least once. Whilst the possibility exists that some people equated a 'career change' with a 'job change', it could also mean that millennials are considering alternatives and many options when it comes to finding a career pathway either due to personal preferences or societal pressures (rapidly transforming jobs etc. as elaborated in A1, P3). (3) Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. Hence, reform is necessary to allow students to experiment and experience practical work culture etc. instead of allowing vulnerable youth to pursue something they are not interested in/do not know much about under the pressure from their parents etc. RE: RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. 'In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.' There is a simple observational error. My opponent has compared a statistic I used (anxiety or depression affection 13% U/G and 15.6% P/G) (6) that was recorded in 2005 with results that were measured in 2015 (6.7% of the general population affected by depression). Additionally, whilst the statistic used in regards to anxiety affecting the general population being 18.1% is verified, 1) This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) 2) There is a problem with the method of calculation. According to con's calculations, an accurate representation would be 18.1% of the general population in 2005 have an anxiety disorder + 5.4% of general population in 2005 with a depressive disorder(7)=23.5% affected. Therefore as 23.5% is greater than 13% and 15.6%, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected. This is higher than the average anxiety or depression disorders existent in the general population, and hence you can argue that anxiety or depression is higher among college students than the general population. This is an example of why this form of comparison is not very good. It is better to quote research involving direct comparison between college students and non-college students. Final Remarks I'm sorry I could not add additional arguments to this debate. Although the bit about college education increasing inequality might be considered one, I've mostly only included rebuttals this round due to time constraints as I'm currently travelling. Thanks for your response con, I look forward to continuing this debate! Sources: 1) https://www.brookings.edu... 2) https://www.brookings.edu... 3) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... 4) https://priceonomics.com... 5) http://www.nbcnews.com... 6) https://www.researchgate.net...... 7) https://www.cdc.gov...
|
18
|
b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00002-000
|
Should churches remain tax-exempt?
|
Churches Ought not be Taxed I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle. Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation. Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America. http://taxthechurches.org... http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying "if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to "benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move, Duncan.
|
23
|
21d8799e-2019-04-18T13:45:43Z-00001-000
|
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
|
Resolved: The United States Government should make abortion illegal. Thank you for your rebuttals Evangelistic Omega, and I applaud you on staying away from my strengths in the art of debating, and identifying them before the debate. I will now first like to defeat any religious arguments on this debate with this fact: Although the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic). [1] This fact would defeat any religious arguments because it states that religious churches, do not actually oppose legalizing abortion. Now that I have defeated any religious arguments I would now like to move on to rebuttals. I"m probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn"t a life, as that"s basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I"ll be brief. A fetus can"t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother"s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn"t imply a right to use somebody else"s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else"s life. The "right to life" also doesn"t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else"s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well? In your rebuttals you stated that you would rather have a child alive and in an orphanage. This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn"t the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34. Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies " not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents. In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn"t address all of them. Now I will move on to my constructive speech. A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). [2] The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion.[3] The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. [4] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [5] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [6] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [7] [8] Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. [9] It is for the reasons that I have stated above, and in my previous speech that I would encourage a vote against the resolution. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals and speech in the next round. Below you will see a list of the resources that I have used to write my rebuttals and speech. Thank you for your time. Resources: [1]Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, religions.pewforum.org, June 2008 [2]E.G. Raymond and D.A. Grimes, "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feb. 2012 [3]American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Medical Association, "Brief of Amici Curiae [in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services et al. v. Attorney General Gregory Abbot et al.]," acog.org, Dec. 19, 2013 [4]Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973 [5]Corinne H. Rocca, Katrina Kimport, et al., "Women's Emotions One Week after Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Sep. 2013 [6]Susan A. Cohen, "Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women"s Risk of Mental Health Problems," Guttmacher Policy Review, Spring 2013 [7]Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh.org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014) [8]Annalee Newitz, "What Happens to Women Denied Abortions? This Is the First Scientific Study to Find Out," io9.com, Nov. 13, 2012 [9]John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005)
|
2
|
86c4374a-2019-04-18T12:17:10Z-00007-000
|
Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?
|
Microagressions and safe spaces I am looking for someone who would like to debate that microagressions are a real issue and one that requires "safe spaces" in places like collage campuses. This person should be prepared to argue what qualifies as a microagression, how and why they are a real issue, and what the consequences of a microagressive statement might be.The first round of the debate will be used to explain our side of the debate, the second round will be used for a rebuttal, and the third round should be used to reply to the rebuttal as well as pose questions for the voting audience of this debate to ponder before taking a stance. Use your first spot to claim that you will participate.
|
35
|
46642c87-2019-04-18T19:37:10Z-00000-000
|
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
|
Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence Humans are fantastic at contextualizing things. We can experience roughly the same thing and treat the experiences completely differently based on a great understanding of the bigger picture. This holds true for violence in video games being different from violence in real life. To desensitize is a permanent effect to make them less able to react to a given situation. It actually occurs in real life. When people are the victims of real violence on a regular basis they actually do become desensitized from it. They employ an array of coping mechanisms as well as departmentalizing the violence. None of this occurs for video games because they are video games. They are placed in their proper context and do not illicit the same responses. >>Now, alluding to my first arguments, after playing the violent video games, the subjects had less of a response to the violent episodes. Therefore, they were desensitized. They were desensitized to violent videos and violent video games, not to "real violence". The same way we contextual video game violence we contextualize video violence. Your cited paper in round one established exactly this. >>It has been proven that people adapt after increased exposure to stimuli and become desensitized to it, so no matter what you can't argue that violent video games do no desensitize individuals to violence at all. Violent video games aren't violence. People understand this. It isn't real. Real violence desensitizes people to real violence as there are actual correlations between those who were victims and those who victimize others. Video games desensitize people to video games. However there's no good evidence that the latter has an effect on the former as well. Pixels aren't people and people understand this. >>The evidence supporting both your and my side is lacking, so there is no ways to say with a high degree of certitude that they do or do not have long term desensitization effects, however that is not what the proposition states. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. I am not necessarily required to prove that violent video games don't desensitize people. However, I have repeatedly offered examples of cultures with significantly more violent video games and significantly less violent crime (Japan) to establish that the correlation fails at the most basic level and thus the topic is not only unproved but wrong. If you suggest that playing violent video games caused cancer it would suffice to show that there's no evidence for that to oppose your suggestion that it does. Voters should be swayed via arguments and to suggest that neither side proved it and therefore they should pick a winner at random is amusingly amusing. ----- >>I hope I didn't waste your time. I'm probably going to lose, but we'll see what the voters decide. X) You certainly didn't waste my time. I'm more than happy to debate you. You're probably going to win. In fact, voters would be crazy to vote for me. I've just finished playing a few hours of Counter Strike: Source so now I'm going to go murdering some people... starting with anybody who votes for me! Pwnd teh nub ftw!
|
8
|
b1853388-2019-04-18T18:16:45Z-00001-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Abortion Putting your sources in the comments doesn't exactly count... but okay. 1. You're still arguing on a legal basis, and it still doesn't work. Since my stance is that abortion should not remain legal (as you stated), this argument fails. I think a fetus/embryo is a life separate from the mother which is not her property, and that she should not be allowed to kill it. If a woman's five year old kid is her property, do you still think it should be legal for her to kill it? Just because something's legal doesn't necessarily mean it's right. 2. And what about those babies? They're people too, and therefore a lot more people would die with abortion legal than illegal. Besides that, my original rebuttal still stands. 3. This argument is irrelevant and doesn't make sense. You have not rebutted any of the points I made, and have just repeated what you already stated. I could rebut this with the same rebuttal I made in the last round. 4. YOUR math is bad. Your numbers aren't any more significant just because you raised the ratio. Are you aware that 133,000 would fit into a billion over 7,518 times? (1) I should also probably note that there is nowhere near a billion people in the US. There are 311,591,917 people, about half of which are women, about half of which are Pro life, and even less of the Pro choice women having had an abortion. (2)(3) This leaves you with less than 77,897,979 women having abortions.(4) That's nowhere near a billion, and therefore 123,000 women have not been supposedly "saved" by abortion. And once again, my original rebuttal still stands for the most part. Just because abortion is slightly safer doesn't mean you should get an abortion because of that. The motive of abortion is almost never to save your own life; it's to avoid having a kid. And abortion does not save lives; you are excluding the lives of the unborn babies killed in abortion. 5. How can the parent even know if the child is handicapped when it's an embryo? And once again, why does the parent get to decide to kill it? Every human has every right to live; it shouldn't be the parent's decision. When I spoke of machines and features, I was talking about wheelchair ramps on buses, special job opportunities at Goodwill, and things like that. Once again, according to your logic, the parents should be allowed to kill the handicapped person at any age. If the parents can't afford something like the actual wheelchair, many charities can be of great help. There is still no need for abortion just because of a handicap, and it generally isn't the reason for abortion anyway. 6. That makes no sense. Have you ever heard of these things called homeless shelters and charities? Where I live, it's possible for a homeless person to get a hot meal every day. And do you have any proof that stealing food for your family is a common crime? Even if it's true, it's not a very serious crime like murder or a bank robbery. Honestly, I think this argument is kind of silly. You're basically saying it's wrong for poor people to have kids. 7. I thought I made this pretty clear. If abortion was illegal, there would be less unwanted pregnancies because the parents know abortion isn't an option. They would be more responsible beforehand, instead of taking care of things after the pregnancy has already started. Thus, less babies would come into the world unwanted. 8. I could rebut most of this with my original argument. What do you mean they haven't been "proven" to be humans? Fetus is obviously a stage of human life. In the same way that babies and the elderly are humans, fetuses and embryos are stages of human life too, and you haven't proven otherwise. 9. None of those arguments make sense. Babies are just as human when inside the womb as outside. Abortion shouldn't be an option since the other options would allow the person to live. And it wouldn't be like taking away adoption because there is absolutely no reason why adoption should be illegal, while there are many reasons why abortion should be. I don't know what you mean by "abortion is one of those abortions." 10. If there is an afterlife, you would know you could have existed if you hadn't been aborted. If there is no afterlife, you wouldn't know you existed no matter what stage you died at. According to this logic, it's okay to kill a man because they wouldn't know they ever existed. And why is it irrelevant? You haven't actually rebutted anything here. 11. You ignored my arguments, and instead rambled about technical terms and how fetuses don't count as babies. You didn't actually rebut any of my arguments. 12. Late term abortion is a type of abortion. The resolution was "Abortion", and you stated yourself that you would be arguing that abortion should be legal. Since you have apparently conceded to this argument, you are saying that abortion should not always be allowed. I have won this argument. 13. Read my argument carefully. "My point is, abortion is yet another beat of a pattern in which humans disregard a type of human life." In other words, abortion is wrong, but it's going to take a while for everyone to agree, just like these other cases of human discrimination. Sourcing isn't necessary because we all know that slavery was once legal, that Hitler killed Jews, and that abortion was legalized in this country. (1) http://www.wolframalpha.com... (2) http://quickfacts.census.gov... (3) http://www.debate.org... (4)http://www.wolframalpha.com...
|
11
|
22c0034a-2019-04-18T16:44:24Z-00005-000
|
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
|
Marijuana is addicting and a drug. A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.- Wikipedia Marijuana is "intoxicating". Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, which contains the psychoactive (mind-altering) chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other related compounds. This plant material can also be concentrated in a resin called hashish or a sticky black liquid called hash oil. Marijuana is the most common illicit drug used in the United States. -Drugfacts Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it.10 The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users.11,12 Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.13-National Institute of Drug abuse "take a seat"
|
36
|
8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00003-000
|
Is golf a sport?
|
Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Mr. Pote I am an eighth grader from Kansas and have had no formal debate class or any class for that matter so I will try my hardest to be formal and give you an opposing case (this is also my first debate ever) so here we go. My opponent gives the definition of a sport and says that "If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports." I agree with this and will not oppose this statement. Contention two:(c) "Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong." (5) "Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win." Golf is a game played in tournaments most of the time (unless you are playing a single game which is not how the professionals play) Ping Pong is also a sport that is played in tournaments so therefore there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament. if a tournament in golf consists of 25 people and a ping pong tournament consists of 25 people, ping pong is actually the harder game to consistently when at because there are more chances for mistakes because you will have to play more than just one game but multiple games to be the winner of the tournament. "Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables." golf does have more variables than ping pong but there are also variables in ping pong such as paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org... "Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful." SKILL-competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit so that is what I would like to zero in on. It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course. Lets compare the size of one hole to the size of a tennis table. My opponent states that the balls are of about the same size and equal in shape. That just means that you have to hit a bigger ball (in comparison to the playing space) in a smaller space and more accurate at that. Also you have to hit a heavier ball with a heavier club so the distance is irrelevant. "This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that "any one" can succeed in. "any one" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves" I agree these are two different things "Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body." In ping pong you must move around constantly to keep a ball in play in golf on the other hand you move to the tee and swing then jump in the golf court and ride to where the ball is that is not very physical at all. I disagree you must hit a golf ball with equal force as you do a ping pong ball because. F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong scientifically by your standards more force is required for ping pong so the statement of mine saying "Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body" is correct! That does not include the constant motion either. http://www.streetdirectory.com... http://www.ajdesigner.com... http://golf.about.com... http://hypertextbook.com... http://www.jayandwanda.com... "I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or "more of a sport"" Once again I agree that is no more of a sport than golf but also once again the size of the playing field determines accuracy which is the definition of skill. In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object. take hunting for example it is easier to hit a deer that does not know you are there to shoot him than it does to kill it as it is running away. http://dictionary.reference.com...
|
36
|
9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000
|
Is golf a sport?
|
Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam
|
41
|
a1a81546-2019-04-18T19:13:44Z-00003-000
|
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?
|
Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. "(Referring to 1st Contention) What if the Foreign Policy Objectives don't include killing thousands?" Going by your examples, they do kill thousands. Nuclear proliferation/Genocide were the two examples you gave. --- "What if the FPO, if agreed above, caused more harms than death (2nd Burden), wouldn't if be going against a FPO that was never put into the Economic Sanction." Why would we ever have the objective to cause more harm than benefit? --- 2. (Contention 2) What if inturn, greater harms are being done, with once again, death not being a FPO. Wouldn't it be unjustified? Economic sanctions might not work. They might end in death with nothing accomplished. Such is the unpredictable nature of life. The same can be said of driving a car to and from work, risking your life on the road. If a particular sanction, like the one in Iraq, begins to seem counter-productive, then we can end the sanction. That is in no way a reason to ban sanctions before they happen. --- "(Second Burden) How are Economic Sanctions justified, despite the damage they cause?" Because they achieve foreign policy objectives --- "How can Economic Sanctions that cause damage ever be labled as: 'just?'" See above answer --- "(Contention 1) If Economic Sanctions are killing thousands, aren't they doing much more harms than benefits, as linked to my own case, and your second burden?" Not if they're being used to stop genocide/nuclear war. If we're sanctioning countries to get reduced price oil or something, that's a problem with our FPOs, not sanctions. --- "How does killing lives of the innocents for the future of your country outweigh you're benefits from Economic Sanctions right now?" It doesn't. That's why I'm advocating sanctions. --- "You're trying to help people in YOUR country, so wouldn't you be contradicting your case by justifying it for the foreign countries we know of?" Why would only America have the right to use sanctions? If America is causing genocide, other countries should be able to sanction us to stop us. I don't see how this is a problem.
|
30
|
1f64bf69-2019-04-18T14:54:36Z-00001-000
|
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
|
Dogs>Cats CAT STDS BITCh http://wtvr.com... GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL G
|
26
|
828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00000-000
|
Do standardized tests improve education?
|
Standardized testing is a good thing I appreciate my opponent's viewpoint, however, they seem to be viewing the situation through rose colored glasses.Issues not adequately addressed by my opponent:1. Classism - The disparity between acceess to resources, support and funding between schools is tremendous and very relevant to this debate."America's education system is unequal and unfair. Students who live in wealthy communities have huge advantages that rig the system in their favor. They have more experienced teachers and a much lower student-teacher ratio. They have more modern facilities, more up-to-date computer and science equipment, and more up-to-date textbooks. They have more elective courses, more music and art offerings, and more extracurricular programs. They have better libraries, more guidance counselors and superior athletic facilities...Not surprisingly, affluent students in well-off school districts have higher rates of high school graduation, college attendance and entry to the more selective colleges. This has little to do with intelligence or ability. For example, 82 percent of affluent students who had SAT scores over 1200 graduate from college. In contrast, only 44 percent of low-income students with the same high SAT scores graduate from college. This wide gap can't be explained by differences in motivation or smarts. It can, however, be explained by differences in money." [1]2. Racism - There are clear historical and current issues regarding racism that affect schools and education on all levels."My research shows that black parents homeschool their children due to white racism. This may come as a surprise since, for many, we live in an age of alleged color blindness and post-racialism, characterized by the declining significance of race and racism. My research found strong evidence to suggest that racism is far from being a thing of the past. I found covert institutional racism and individual racism still persist and are largely responsible for the persistence of profound racial disparities and inequalities in many social realms." [2]"Public school students of color get more punishment and less access to veteran teachers than their white peers...Such discrimination lowers academic performance for minority students and puts them at greater risk of dropping out of school..."[3]3. Poverty - Teaching children that are poverty-stricken requires more innovative approaches and techniques than those offered by traditional educational methods. One thing that is striking about Finland's educational sysem is that they do not allow obvious differences in quality of schools or education to exist. This illustrates what is lacking in schools in the U.S.. Namely, a genuine concern for all students involved in the process, an earnest desire to provide equal access and a willingness to offer the necessary support needed to implement a quality educational program at all levels of the educational process."Poverty is on the rise in America and is creating a phenomenon known as the "poverty trap."..This is important for schools because poverty greatly decreases student learning ability, and public schools and teachers must become more creative at finding ways to mitigate the negative effects of poverty in the classroom. During an era of increasing public education "reform," it's important to keep poverty in mind as a factor of student achievement...The US is currently one of only three countries in the in the OECDOECD community..that spend as little on welfare for families in poverty, that do as little for helping children in poverty, and that do not equalize educational opportunity for children in poor communities..."[4]4. Student input - The input, opinion, or concerns of students is rarely asked for by those who design and maintain the educational system. This is, at least, bad business practice. From a business standpoint alone, it is crucial to understand and meet the needs of your target audience."School districts must specifically seek student input in developing their Local Control and Accountability Plans under the revised regulations being considered for adoption by the State Board of Education Friday..."If students didn't get a formal process, if we had no opportunity to give our voice – our voice was considered dead,""[5]Counterrebuttal for student removal: NCLB is considered to be a failure."No Child Left Behind is really, really unpopular. Roughly three in 10 Americans think the George W. Bush-era federal education law has actually worsened the quality of education...children from low-income families...continue to struggle with vastly inadequate educational opportunities," wrote Julian Zelizer, a Princeton history professor...Despite its bipartisan roots, No Child Left Behind, Zelizer argued, has done little to reverse those trends."[6]Counterrebuttal for item selection: Cultural bias is not always purposeful, however, in this case it appeared to be. As the citation states, "This was apparently done to assure that test results (showing African-Americans scoring lower than whites) would be "consistent" from year to year." Meaning instead of assuring unbiased results, the designers were apparently basing their desired outcomes on the lopsided results measured in the past.Counterrebuttal for Racism: To many, it is racist to suggest that imperialism improved the lives of Africans. It is also racist to suggest that the Africans were not conducting their own affairs with justice and humanity.Counterrebuttal for Socio-economic bias: The citation mentioned regarded the question as socio-economic bias masquerading as cultural diversity. How many underpriveleged 3rd graders can relate to questions about tennis "doubles" and country clubs? It is important to note that both Venus and Serena Williams were trained by their father due to the racism and bias in the sport of tennis."...In 1991 Richard Williams, who managed and coached both Serena and Venus...decided that they should enter no more tournaments on the national junior circuit...he hoped to avoid subjecting his daughters to competitive pressures, including an undertone of racial hostility."[7]Counterrebuttal for cultures: My opponent states, "...if you would just look at the SAT questions for people in her native country, that will more likely fit her culture." A statement like this illustrates cultural bias. You cannot assume that because she was a Latina that she was not born in America. The U.S. is a hodgepodge of different cultures. The test should be designed from a world view and not through a eurocentric lens.Counterrebuttal for knowledge accuracy: As stated, these tests are more about memorization and regurgitation of information rather than grasping and implementing concepts.Counterrebuttal for teacher support: My opponent's source states, "After No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading..."Despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education."[8]"The movement to boycott standardized tests and reform test-based accountability systems current being implemented across the country is growing. Though exact numbers are impossible to know, students, teachers, principals, parents, superintendents and others are speaking out for the first time calling on policy-makers to roll back test-based school reform — and in many places students are simply refusing to take new Common Core and similar standardized tests... Another important development has been the rapid increase in state and local teacher unions openly battling the overuse and misuse of tests and backing the right of parents to opt out..."[9]Counterrebuttal for stakes: My opponent stated: "The number of students is irrelivent." However, it has been proven that, "Class size is a proven and effective reform."[10] "The use of suspensions contributes to our achievement gap. Three quarters of suspensions of students 7 and younger are imposed on minority students, according to state data. Exclusionary discipline – suspensions, expulsions and student arrests – is more heavily used in our poorest school districts. "[11]Counterrebuttal for ability: I am only saying test can't be standardized until school's are.Counterrebuttal for Finland: None of the reasons cited for Finland's success are unachievable for the U.S..Counterrebuttal for racism: Cultural bias does not require slang or vulgarity. This is why standardized testing is not as important as true connections between teachers and students.Counterrebuttal for quality education: For anyone to suggest that every student in the U.S receives the same quality of education is a miscarriage of justice, to say the least.Again, I thank my opponent for participation in this discourse.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3]http://www.truth-out.org... [4]http://edsource.org... [5]http://www.theatlantic.com... [6]http://www.encyclopedia.com... [7]http://standardizedtests.procon.org... [8]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [9]http://parentsacrossamerica.org... [10]http://ctmirror.org... [11]
|
2
|
8a8904c0-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00008-000
|
Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?
|
Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being While some or even most people think that smoking cigarettes is bad for you there are several reasons why it is good. Health Risks Each cigarette contains 10mg nicotine but only 1-2 is consumed in the body. Do you know that tobacco has long been known to have a stimulating effect on the brain. This is to also to help boost memory, have you become more alert and better concentration. Do you also know that the ingredients in cigarettes are helping people today in 2012 to extend their medical issue extra months with the Alzheimer's disease. It has also been discovered that in addition to better memory and concentration that it is boosting the intelligence and recall ability of animals in laboratory experiments. How is that possible you may ask yourself? Here is how: Nicotine is locked into the brain fairly quickly, causing your body to start pumping more blood and producing more glucose. Sugar is then rapidly released throughout the body, making the smoker feel more alert and focused. I'm sure you were not aware of this as many only focus on the bad and the harm it can do your health. People do not know all the facts. Social Effects People who smoke all tend to stay together. The reason why is because there are so many out there that are full of judgment and look down as smokers. Yes smoking can play an important role in friendships, while offering a cigarette or asking for a light can be ice-breakers to start a conversation. Many people may not be so social to go out and meet others as easy so by having that common grounds helps with striking up a conversation. By having a conversation based on a common habit is not so bad if you are trying to make friends at work or out of work. It is an ice breaker and may create long lasting relationships in many ways that ultimately makes you happy and create a happier lifestyle for you and others. Again many will state that its bad for you but as stated above they don't know all the facts and how it also filters into your personal mental well being. Read more: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Read more: http://www.3fatchicks.com...
|
41
|
ba472fa6-2019-04-18T13:02:25Z-00003-000
|
Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?
|
Student Separation I accept. I think students should be separated based on their academic level more than how old they are.
|
3
|
5f897b7a-2019-04-18T16:20:03Z-00007-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
Free trade should be a norm I am mainly looking to explore the economic implications of this topic, but political arguments are equally valid. First, some definitions:"Free trade" is the practice of encouraging mutually beneficial international commerce, by lowering barriers to trade (such as tariffs, anti-competitive subsidies, or other barriers). "A norm" is a generally, but not universally, acknowledged and accepted practice. Note: We are not debating that there should be no subsidies or tariffs, just that they should be the exception, not the norm. These definitions are negotiable.
|
13
|
9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00074-000
|
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
|
Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions Global warming is driven by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar energy emits none of these gases, and is abundant, so can dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and help reverse global warming.
|
13
|
e9f159b3-2019-04-18T14:40:43Z-00002-000
|
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
|
Free Trade Benefits the United States "If greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, we'll soon reach a tipping point, after which runaway climate change will make the planet uninhabitable to humans." You claim that greenhouse gas emissions usage, if continued at this rate, would like to runaway climate change that would make this planet uninhabitable. I will grant you the argument that greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to make the planet uninhabitable. I disagree with the idea that gas emissions would continue at our current rate. Free Trade is Beneficial to the Environment "Free trade is incompatible with reducing emissions, slowing climate warming, and saving our planet. Under a free trade regime, prices are set solely by supply and demand, so social costs like climate change and environmental damage aren't reflected in a good's price. Economists call these unaccounted social costs an "externality." Free trade is driven by prices, so if prices are wrong due to externalities, free trade will produce bad outcomes." You provide no sources that demonstrate that free trade is incompatible with reducing emissions and slowing global warming. Negative externalities do result from fossil fuel usage in the form of greenhouse gasses and pollution, but that doesn't mean artificially increasing the price of energy consumption to try to make the price "right" would actually benefit society. On the contrary, there is evidence that free trade actually benefits the environment. One study found that "Our estimates of the scale and technique elasticities indicate that, if openness to international markets raises both output and income by 1 percent, pollution concentrations fall by approximately 1 percent. Putting this calculation together with our earlier evidence on composition effects yields a somewhat surprising conclusion with regard to sulfur dioxide: freer trade is good for the environment." http://www.cer.ethz.ch... Free trade would also benefit the environment because it facilitates the spread of more efficient and greener technologies. A World Bank study found that "Access to climate-friendly clean energy technologies is especially important for the fast-growing developing economies. Within the context of the current global trade regime, the study finds that a removal of tariffs and NTBs for four basic clean energy technologies (wind, solar, clean coal, and efficient lighting) in 18 of the high-GHG-emitting developing countries will result in trade gains of up to 13 percent. If translated into emissions reductions, these gains suggest that—even within a small subset of clean energy technologies and for a select group of countries—the impact of trade liberalization could be reasonably substantial." http://www-wds.worldbank.org... "For example, transportation costs." Sure, there are transportation emissions, but the alternative is worse. "A potential solution is a small, uniform tariff for all imports. This would encourage local production, thereby avoiding an enormous amount of wasted energy in transportation. Another idea is a carbon tax; the US could penalize imports of fossil fuels and other harmful energy-intensive industries. This would help discourage greenhouse gas emissions and encourage clean production facilities and renewable energy sources." This proposal to reduce carbon emissions is flawed. First off, tariffs would lead to an inefficient allocation of resources in society due to the loss of comparative advantage. Losing efficiency means more waste and higher emissions from inefficient production. The carbon tax is a regressive tax that burdens poor people the most, would increase the cost of living for everyone, lead to less economic growth, and would not affect oil consumption greatly unless the tax is set enormously high, due to the inelastic demand for oil. The better solution to facilitate the advancement of alternative energy sources is to decrease regulations that prevent business growth, increase free trade to facilitate the expansion of green technologies, and allow the free market to continue developing alternative energy sources. Free trade is not incompatible with the reducing carbon emissions. Free trade will lead to the reduction of carbon emissions. Free trade is Sustainable "Free trade lets the US import more than it exports (i.e. deficit trading). To make up the difference, the US must assume debt. As a result, foreign countries own over $30 trillion in US assets, and the US net international investment position is -$5.445 trillion. [4]" International investment isn't equivalent to free trade. Free trade is the lack of tariffs and barriers in the transaction of goods and services in the economy. Investing involves buying and holding stocks, bonds, and mutual funds to achieve a profit later. Tariffs don't directly apply to US international investment. But while we're on the topic of sustainability, it has been proven time and again that protectionism hurts the economy and is unsustainable. A famous example of protectionism at work is the Smoot-Hawley Bill. The Smoot-Hawley Bill was a bill that drastically increased tariffs to try to protect American works, but it ended up backfiring and hurting out economy. "U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations." http://future.state.gov... Free trade increases the standards of living of the poor "The Stolper-Samuelson theorem, an underlying mechanism of free-market economics, says that freer trade raises returns to the abundant facctor of production and lowers returns to the scarce once. [11] In the US, the abundant factor is capital and the scarce one is labor. Thus, according to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, free trade increases economic inequality. [12] [13] The jobs that suffer most are those that are easily traded for cheap labor abroad. This primarily impacts low-skill workers, who either lose their job or get paid less. Of course, that means free trade hurts most Americans, as most American work the sorts of blue-collar jobs that are easily traded. So we're talking about a massive impact here: a minority gets richer (and these are folks who are already rich), while the vast majority gets poorer. " Free trade has overall helped poor Americans. Yes, some types of jobs have been lost, but overall poor Americans are better off with free trade than without. One example is how free trade helps job growth. The Heritage Foundation found that, "Today, the $12 trillion U.S. economy is bolstered by free Trade, a pillar of America's vitality. In 2005, U.S. exports to the rest of the world totaled $1.2 trillion and supported one in five U.S. manufacturing jobs. jobs directly linked to the export of goods pay 13 percent to 18 percent more than other U.S. jobs." Also, "The average U.S. tariff rate on all goods has fallen from over 19 percent in 1933 to 1.8 percent in 2004. As a percentage of GDP, the importance of Trade in the economy has climbed from single digits in the 1930s to nearly one-quarter of U.S. GDP in 2004. At the same time that Trade has become freer, real per capita GDP in the U.S. (in constant 2000 dollars) has climbed from a low of $5,061 in 1933 to about $36,000 in 2004." Average wages have substantially increased for every single income percentile since the start of trade liberalization. Economic inequality may have increased over time, but the free market isn't a zero-sum game. Free trade benefits every that takes part in the market, rich or poor. I'd rather have economic inequality and increased standards of living for the poor, than having everyone be more equal, but poorer. http://www.heritage.org... As I have ran out of time, I will be discussing and defending my arguments for innovation and the gains of trade next round.
|
3
|
c40de107-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00002-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
Should abortion be allowed A fertalized egg is not a person, it is a sex cell and has no autonimy of it's own- instead it is property of the mother, just like my sperm is my own property.
|
10
|
b2d8d220-2019-04-18T16:19:58Z-00001-000
|
Should any vaccines be required for children?
|
vaccines I shall assume my opponent has nothing more to say? Very well, I shall conclude my debate in the last round...
|
47
|
d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00000-000
|
Is homework beneficial?
|
Does homework have any benefits My point of contention is that homework can be very beneficial given the right balance between the amount of homework and time available for students to complete it. I'm not sure how exactly to respond to your point about children having to do too much of it, as I don't know the country that you're based in or and I also don't know how you define a substantial amount of homework. These are the reasons why I think that it is beneficial and is not a waste of time if the above criteria is met: 1. It allows for the development of time management skills within students, since they have to manage their homework with the time constraints given. The source cited states that homework is important in the process of self regulation and control. [1] 2. Homework forces students to apply the knowledge that they learned in the classroom, which is especially important for development of intellect, as being able to apply knowledge of a given topic is what allows you to utilize it within your everyday life. While you may not be able to directly apply trigonometry into your life, the type of thought processes that mathematics hinges on can give students a better ability apply study skills in their everyday lives. [2] 3. Homework reinforces education, which while may not be directly applicable, it is crucially important for survival in an increasingly modern economic marketplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data that shows that the unemployment rate increases 3.25 times when comparing people over 25 with a doctoral degree and those who only have a high school diploma (1.6% to 5.2%). It also shows that the difference between these two groups when it comes to full time weekly earnings is that those with a high school diploma earn 2.41 times less than those with a doctoral degree. [3] 4. There is also a link between the amount of education one has and their estimated IQ. While IQ may not be the end-all-be-all determiner of intelligence, it gives us a good idea of one's general intellectual capabilities. On page 63 of Coming Apart, Charles Murray displays a graph that shows that the difference between those who don't have a degree and those with a high school diploma is 11 and 12 (82-89, 05-09), and the difference between those with a diploma and a PHD or its equivalents are 27 and 25 respectively, this shows that there are relatively significant differences in IQ between people who have radically different amounts of education. [4] Sources: [1]- Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2011, December). Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from http://www.davidsongifted.org... Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 194-218 [2]- Y. Sagher, M. V. Siadat, and L. Hagedorn, Building study skills in a college mathematics classroom, The Journal of General Education 49(2) (2000), 132"155. [3]- The NLSY79. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://www.bls.gov... [4]- ONeill, William L. Coming apart: an informal history of America in the 1960s: with a new introduction by the author. Ivan R. Dee, 2005. Pg. 63 I wish the best of luck to you in this debate! I think that this is the first debate on this website for both of us.
|
28
|
52c8b995-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00001-000
|
Should prostitution be legal?
|
Prostitution should be illegal. Prostitution should be illegal for three reasons: (1) prostitution causes irreparable physical and psychological harms, (2) legalizing prostitution will not eliminate violence in prostitution, and (3) prostitution increases human trafficking.Prostitution causes irreparable physical and psychological harms.The average life span for prostitutes is four years. No other population of women has a higher death rate. [1] Many prostitutes are murdered. Those that aren't experience an extensive catalog of violence. Their hair is pulled, faces ejaculated on; they are slapped, pinched, verbally abused, threatened, beaten, cut with knives, burned with cigarettes, and gang raped. [1] Victims of torture describe similar acts. [2] And like victims of torture, prostitutes report injuries like bruises, mouth and teeth injuries, vaginal bleeding, internal injuries, head injuries, and broken bones. [3]Prostitution also has psychological consequences. For example, prostitutes are at a heightened risk of depression, mania, suicidal thoughts, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders and chemical dependence. [1] Prostitutes report a sense of "splitting," of "leaving my body" or going "someplace else mentally." The result is a higher incidence of dissociative disorders. [5] Prostitution also leads to a higher incidence of PTSD.The psychological damage stems from the act itself. Even women who choose to prostitute cannot avoid the trauma associated with constant sexual degradation, and with having one's body sold as a commodity. Indeed, the psychological damage is often unconscious and manifests after-the-fact. Thus, no amount of "improvement" to the conditions of prostitution can eliminate its psychological consequences.These results are not limited to illegal prostitution. Even prostitutes working in countries where prostitution is legal, in brothels with so-called "safety policies," experience this extensive catalog of physical and psychological violence. [4]Legalizing prostitution will not eliminate violence in prostitution.Violence against prostitutes remains extremely high even in countries that legalize prostitution. [6] For example, in European countries where prostitution has been legalized -- or had elements of prostitution legalized -- the number of prostitutes has more than doubled after legalization. Yet violence towards these prostitutes has not decreased. [7] That highlights one of the major problems with legalization: it causes more women to prostitute, which in turn causes overall violence against women to increase. Studies have also shown that violence against women has actually increased in many "legal" brothels with "safety policies." [1] [4]Legalizing prostitution will increase human trafficking.Human trafficking is bad. It poses serious health issues for women and girls worldwide, weakens the rule of law, and may even compromise international security.Studies have found that legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking. A 2012 study published by World Development found that countries with legalized prostitution have higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. [8] The International Organization of Migration attributed the rise in trafficking to the rise of prostitution in Europe. [9] And the U.S. Department of State recognized that legalized prostitution makes anti-trafficking work more difficult. [9]Everyone agrees that trafficking is a violation of basic human rights. But trafficking would not exist without prostitution. The two go hand-in-hand. All empirical data suggests that legalizing prostitution increases trafficking.References:[1] Melissa Farley, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder," http://fap.sagepub.com...;[2] "Nigerian women tortured by prostitution ring in Greece," Associated Press, http://www.highbeam.com...[3] A Comparative Study of Women Trafficked in the Migration Process: Patterns, Profiles and Health Consequences of Sexual Exploitation in Five Countries, http://www.oas.org...[4] Patricia Hynes and Janice Raymond, "Put in Harms Way: The Neglected Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking in the United States." [5] C.A. Ross, M. Farley, and H.L. Schwartz, "Dissociation Among Women in Prostitution."[6] I. Vanwesenbeeck et al, "Professional HIV risk taking, levels of victimization, and well-being in female prostitutes in the Netherlands," http://business.highbeam.com...[7] Joan Smith, "Why British men are rapists," http://www.newstatesman.com...[8] http://papers.ssrn.com...[9] J. Raymond, "Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution," http://www.catwinternational.org...
|
3
|
ec2de955-2019-04-18T17:44:12Z-00005-000
|
Should insider trading be allowed?
|
Gay marriage should be allowed Why shouldn't two people of the same sex be allowed together? I find it ironic how countries are trying to fight against homophobia, even though laws against the right for gays to marry IS being homophobic. I also find it sexist how men love to see lesbians, (because they think we're into special 'kinky' things that other couples wouldn't do, even though that's not true. We have the same sex life as straight couples) and hate seeing gay men.
|
43
|
46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000
|
Should bottled water be banned?
|
Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER
|
42
|
c40de107-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00000-000
|
Should fighting be allowed in hockey?
|
Should abortion be allowed No- it's the genetic material which might have ended up being used as a blueprint for a future life. Preventing a life from forming is not the same as murder, just like deciding to wear a condom isn't murder.
|
40
|
11ca5095-2019-04-18T15:57:49Z-00001-000
|
Should the death penalty be allowed?
|
Abolishing the Death Penalty Deterrence Fesser didn't mention the rationality of human nature, he only argued for proportionality... So any rationality argument I will put under deterrence, since rational choice theory is what this argument rests upon. If you look at criminal behavior, it is wholly rational. Criminals target the weak. In cases where you arm civilians, there is reduced crime. Even assuming in 1/10 cases the victim wins, in the other 9 the bad guy wins, there is still a strong deterrent effect. Even assuming 1/100 muggers are shot, and 99 are fine, the risk is still extremely high. Most of these victims do not carry enough money to be worth a 1% chance of death. Most murder victims, on balance, are generally not worth dying for--even if the chance of death is fairly small (there are a few cases where people wont act rationally; terrorism for example). But the fact is, based on criminal behavior, it is very easy to see that most criminals act rationally. If the costs of an action are too high, they will opt to commit different crimes or wait until the cost of the crime decreases (they wait until the laws change, for example). As economist David Friedman points out, "[t]he decision to commit a crime, like any other economic decision, can be analyzed as a choice among alternative combinations of costs and benefits." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. In a similar line of logic, Murray Rothbard further elaborates, "it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is anyreduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently." [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. Arguing that murders still happen when the death penalty exists is a terrible argument. This view assumes the death penalty is the only factor when it comes to crime. The death penalty may reduce murder, but it wont eliminate it--the fact is, murder will likely always exist. However, what is interesting to note is that when murder began to decrease, is the same time death penalty usage also began to increase--and eventually peak. The vast majority of recent research obtains their deterence conclusion from researching the period before, during, and after death penalty was banned and then relegalized. They generally find that crime was falling, increased, then fell again. This is in direct support of what deterrence theory supports. My opponent compares states, however this is a poor argument as well. This assumes the death penalty is the largest factor in crime, when the fact is other factors (arrest rates, conviction rates, poverty, etc.) influence crime much more. Further, it ignores a simple explanation: high crime means more death penalty. States with high crime have a death penalty in order to reduce the crime. The death penalty did, in fact, reduce the crime--but the overall rate still remained above that of other states due to other factors. Economist John Lott has found that generally states without the death penalty had crime lower than those with the death penalty BEFORE they abolished the death penalty--meaning other factors than the death penalty explain the difference [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. In fact, when these variables are accounted for, states with the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Merely having a death penalty may or may not deter crime. States that have a death penalty and do not use it often will not produce a deterrent effect--and can actually find a slight increase in crime. Only in states that use it quickly or often will see strong deterrent effects. Research has confirmed this: this means more death, not less, should be enacted in order to reduce crime [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. 1) This argument makes no sense. The death penalty does not apply to all murders, therefore, it is impossible to make the murder rate 0. It ignores any other factors related to crime. 2) Says the person who uses cross sectional evidence -_- Regardless, 18 pannel data studies since 1999 all controlling for different factors, different methods, and all having strong support from crime research that criminals are rational, and Becker's 1967 work on crime, there is a pretty strong hint of causation. 3) Oversimplification, lol. You are the one who said the DP alone would make murder 0, and state comparisons are a valid argument... And I am accused of oversimplification. The fact is, there is strong empirical work on the issue which controls for more variables then we could think of. Is that oversimplification, no, it really isn't. It is science [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. a) This has been accounted for. Parenting, urbanization, race, etc. The fact is these factors alone DO count for most of the crime--NO ONE denies this. But it is accepted amongst people who work in this area that the death penalty does, in fact, deter some crime. To argue that punishments do not deter crime is illogical--and this has been discussed already. b) That proves my point. Murder fell fastest in the 1990s, at the same time death penalty usage skyrocketed... And wasn't it my opponent who said the death penalty would make the murder rate 0, so this contradicts here former points...There are many states that have similar cultures and demographics to other states. These have already been accounted for and used in the research. No surprise, they all show the death penalty reduces crime (though this is weak evidence as it is cross sectional. It is much better to see what happens in a given state as the factors are easier to control for... See the following graphs) (see page 396 for more. All states show the same trend: legal DP less murder, abolishing DP = more murder)http://tinyurl.com...;CostKansas uses the death penalty very rarely, has not executed an inmade since 1965, etc. The death penalty in Kansas, therefore, seems to be rare and inefficient, leading to its high costs [6. http://tinyurl.com...]. The fact is, in states where death penalty opponents exonerate (often not for innocence reasons) death row inmates, or death row inmates are rarely executed, we can expect to see higher costs. In states, such as Virginia, where a death sentence is fast and likely (65% sentenced get executed), costs are much cheaper. In other words, death penalty opponents artificially make executions cost more by making the system as inefficient as possible. An efficient death penalty system would cost much less than life in prison--sadly, the anti death penalty lobby make this impossible. Further, the Kansas study essentially conceded that the study was flawed, "Actual cost figures for death penalty and non death penalty cases in Kansas don't exist. (page 10 of the study)" [7. http://tinyurl.com...]. Yep, the study didn't even use cost data. Sadly, this is the case for most cost studies. Again, the most accurate studies find that the death penalty costs about the same as LWOP, and an efficient DP system would cost far less [8. http://tinyurl.com...]. InnocenceOne innocent person executed is too much? So, as proven the DP is an extremely strong deterrent. Would you ban the DP to prevent another one person from being executed, but sacrifice 10 to murder? If I have the option, I save the 10 innocent people. I end up with 9 innocent people alive, in your situation we have 9 innocents die. And as technology improves, the risk of killing an innocent continues to decrease. (My example right here was bad. With all the executions and the current success rate, it would have been better to say 1 innocent person dying and 1000 saved from murder).
|
28
|
670240e1-2019-04-18T19:43:42Z-00004-000
|
Should prostitution be legal?
|
Abortion should be legal. Hello, ChristianDebater. I intend to destroy you in this debate. I'm glad you started it, This is potentially the first formidable debate on abortion I've ever engaged in. Let the destruction begin! First thing's first: the rebuttals! !! >>> "Abortion can be harmful to the woman if it's not conducted properly especially if performed in a third-world country. " +++ It is true that abortion has some harmful effects but the chance of these effects are extremely unlikely. The two most common effects are bleeding and psychological, but these two effects are common with every surgery. +++ Abortion can be used for health benefits. Often, having the baby will kill the mother or the pregnancy can be detremental to the mother's health. Are you willing to let a person die when you know you can save the life in advance? Why would you bring a new life into the world at the known expense of one who has a husband, mother, friends and is probably already a mother. Would you let your mother die in order to have a smaller brother who you don't even know? No. It is immoral for the government or any entity to force a woman to die for the sake of an embryo that does not even have thoughts, feeling and certainly not loved ones. +++ A teenage mother will ruin her life if she has a baby, It will be very difficult for her to keep her grades up and do well in life. Statistically, teenage mothers are not as successful. This is an overwhelming statistic. It is immoral to force a girl to ruin her life like this. >>> "Controversially, crime rates could actually go up. Prostitution is at an all time high, because a woman could easily get an abortion whenever she wanted to. " +++ I do not believe that prostitution is at an all time high. Prostitution was the social norm trough the 1920s. Please show some proof. +++ Prostitution is not a harmful crime. The legalization of prostitution would be more beneficial. +++ There is no relation between abortions and prostitution. Prostitutes will simply demand the use of condoms or use birth control. Your link is non-existant. >>> "The fetus IS A PERSON with a future just like you and me! It is morally wrong to murder a baby in horrific ways and deprive them of that future! " +++ A fetus does not have feelings until 26 weeks. It is impossible for a fetus to think until this time as well. It is not a person. The mother, however, is. >>> "Plus the woman sometimes regrets getting an abortion afterwards. So pro-choice isn't always good. " +++ This is ridiculous. If you are going to argue that it is a woman's consequence and choice for having sex to have a baby, then you must accept that it is a woman's consequence and choice to decide for herself if she wants to deal with a baby or death from having a baby or if she wants to deal with anxiety. >>> You may have a choice to abort the baby but he/she does not. Think about it. You are in prison. You are completely innocent. Everyone knows you are completely innocent yet you are still in prison. Without a court case, you are taken to the executioner and killed on the spot. This is in essence what you are doing to the baby! +++ This is not what is happening to the baby. The baby does not have thoughts or feelings. And think of the poor mother. Are you going to force her to have a baby that could have resulted from rape or could potentially kill her? Is that morality to you? >>> "You say the fetus it not human, yet it has human DNA and is therefore human in nature! Just because a mother has this choice a baby is separate from her as a person. I'm sure if you asked the baby they would want a future! " +++ No. If you asked the EMBRYO it would not say, think or feel anything. The mother would probably say, if asked, that she wants a future, however. >>> Another argument I say is the sexist argument of "Men shouldn't decide what is right for us women. We should! " Men aren't solely deciding the GOVERNMENT is. Last time I checked the government consisted of both men AND women. And yes there are woman who do not agree with abortion! +++ Well, I'm not using the sexist argument. Although it is legitimate. Women are not child bearing receptacles. They are human beings with rights. My points: 1. The government does not, and should not have the right to control a woman's body. The founding fathers included 22 ways the givernment should be restricted. They used the word "not" in context of the government 22 times. They do not want the government controlling our bodies. 2. "Back alley" abortions were very common in times when abortion was legal. These abortions included women sticking hangars into their bodies to kill their fetuses. This will continue if abortion is criminalized. 3. A child that is unwanted will be neglected. GOD wants mothers to want their babies. GOD sticks these soon-to-be people in their bodies for nine months and cause much damage and stress. This causes mothers to love their babies so much more. He also makes them half of us. If you do not love your baby, God does not want you to have it. 4. Neglected children will be the inevitable result. They are a lot more likely to become criminals. 5. One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life. 6. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person. 7. Some women are raped. Should they be forced to keep the rapist's baby and take care of it? 8. Women can die from pregnancy and birth. Should these women be killed? Should their child's due date be a countdown for days left to live? What about their friends and families? 9. Abortion bans have been ruled unconstitutional because they are detremental to women's health. We have the right to life. The government cannot force a woman to have herself killed.
|
38
|
174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00001-000
|
Should marijuana be a medical option?
|
Medical Marijuana My opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder. My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution. What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. Per the New York Times: "In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it "shockingly easy" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as "primary caregivers" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program." It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched. REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications. Sources (not including those previously used): http://www.pendulum.org... http://www.nytimes.com...
|
39
|
86b6274-2019-04-18T18:28:52Z-00001-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
The Government was the Primary Cause of the Great Depression (Sources@comments)The question at hand is whether or not the government was the primary cause of the great depression. In arguing that it is I will, of course, talk about how government caused the initial fall in the economy from 1929-1932. But of more importance is the discussion of how the policies that followed created an environment that stopped the economy from recovering for more than a decade. After all, recessions had come and gone many times in American history prior to the great depression. What made this one different was that the government attempted to intervene into the economy in a way never seen before. The results were disastrous.Monetary Policy:The federal reserve first contributed to the great depression by fueling the speculative bubble that led to the stock market crash of 1929. From 1921 to 1929 we see a 61 percent increase in the money supply and yet no increase in currency in circulation (Rothbard 93). One thus sees then that the expansion was in credit nor currency. One can further see that a substantial cause of this expansion was a rise in the prominence of time deposits in commercial banks which, under, and because of, the regulation of the federal reserve, had a lesser reserve requirement than the previously more popular demand deposits(Rothbard 99-100). More over, the expansion was led by an increase in total reserves which was not only caused by federal reserves policies, but in fact overpowered the deflationary pressure exerted by reserves outside of the fed's control(Rothbard 108). We also see that the treasury increased the money supply, via the purchase of silver, by some 211 million dollars (Rothbard 117). All of this loose credit allowed leveraged speculation that was ultimately put an end to in 1929.Thus the fed led the credit induced boom in the stock market. It is no surprise then that it was key in ending it. The fed, frightened by an unsustainable stock boom as-well the outflow of gold from the united states into Europe (Smiley), decreased total reserves by $261 million in 1928 (Rothbard 160). On top of this, the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate and tightened credit in the stock market.(Rothbard 165-166). The picture drawn here then is one of the Fed fueling a credit induced speculative bubble and then going out of its way to make that bubble pop.Once the depression began the Fed allowed the money supply to contract sharply (Wheelock 11) and allowed its real discount rate to rise in order to halt gold outflow (Fisherback 5). Thus the often noted bank panics of the early depression which took the 1932 bank holiday to stop (Smiley). To its credit the fed did begin to engage in open market operations in 1932, but, in the words of the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, it was too little too late (Fisherback 7).Following 1932 the Fed led a more sensible, though still much too timid, policy. The economy as a whole was improving as the 30's progressed. That is, until the fed, and others, had a sudden change of heart in 1937. Due to absurd fears of inflation the federal reserve DOUBLED reserve requirements (Smiley). Not surprisingly this, in conjunction with bad fiscal policy, caused a second recession in 1937 which saw unemployment shoot up 7 full percentage points in a year (Smiley).Fiscal Policy:Now that I have addressed monetary policy I can move on to fiscal policy. The place to start, of course, is Herbert Hoover. Herbert hoover did a great number of things to harm the economy in the early 1930's. In 1930 he passed the Smoot Hawley Tarrif which doubled taxes on import, and contributed heavily to a 66% fall in imports between 1929 and 1933 (Fisherback 27). Perhaps even worse, Hoover raised taxes in 1932, thus further dampening aggregate demand (Smiley). But Hoover's greatest attack on prosperity came in his actions towards wages. He help a conference which ensured that industrial wages would be kept stable (Ohanian 8). Due to deflation, nominally stable wages actually entailed an increase in real wages in the first years of the depression (Ohanian 29). During this time period industrial production fell by 34%. compared to total factory productivity which only fell 5%. We can make sense of this only if we look at hours worked which fell by 40%, no doubt due to the artificially high wages imposed by hoover (Ohanian 3-4). Hoover further raised the cost of labor by requiring all federally aided projects to pay the union wage with the davis-beacon act of 1931 (Horwitz 5). If that wasn't enough he passed The Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932. This act gave unprecedented power to unions and even went as far as to make union-free labor contracts unenforceable in federal courts (Baird). Given hoovers destruction of aggregate demand via tariffs and taxes in conjunction with his artificial increases in real wages and the sharp contraction of the money supply allowed by the fed is it any surprise that our economy looked like it did in 1933?Now for Roosevelt. Roosevelt's first offense is his policy towards labor. He passed the Wagner act in 1935 which gave the unions even greater power. They could now force collective bargaining, and an employer could now longer engage in the practice of choosing to hire non union workers (1). It further allow union workers to force non union works of the same firm into a union with a majority vote thus allowing unions to monopolize labor (Smiley). Fdr also, of course, created social security and with it a new tax on labor in 1936 (Smiley). The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 brings into existence the minimum wage as-well as forced overtime pay (2). These policies in conjunction, not unlike hoovers, massively discouraged firms from purchasing labor.Next we have the NIRA. The NIRA was implemented by Roosevelt in-order to fight competition. In purposely instituted monopolies and oligopolies, kept prices high, and restricted output (Cole and Ohanian). It would be difficult to think of a policy which would have a greater negative effect on the efficiency of the market. Fortunately though, it was declared unconstitutional in 1935.Then we have 1937. As I have noted elsewhere, the economy took a turn for the worse in the recession of 1937 after having progressed forward in the years prior. And while this is partly to blame on the federal reserve for doubling reserve requirements Roosevelt also shares in responsibility. In 1936 Roosevelt, in the midst of the great depression, tried to balance the budget. He did this by increasing taxes. He upped taxes to such a degree that income tax revenues increased by 66% from 1936 to 1937 (Velde 19). As a result of such policies we see that government had collected 57% more total revenue in 1940 than in 1927 (Higgs 573). The exact opposite of how tax policy should work in an economic slump.And lastly we have the psychological affect of FDP's policies. He caused what is known as regime uncertainty. He left investors worried about the future of the market. Would FDR create a primarily government run economy in the near future? Would new taxes be introduced? Polls from the time period show that many businessmen were unsure (Higgs 577-578) and that they were consciously aware of the fact that this uncertainty, caused by the policies of FDR, was stopping business from expanding (Higgs 577). After all, why would one make an investment that would reap its profits 5 years from now when one is unsure if profits will substantially exist 5 years from now! This hypothesis helps explain the fact that private investment took a huge fall in the 1930's that didn't sustainably recover until 1946 long after FDR's rain and the age of the New Deal.Thus FDR's policies of increased taxes, making labor artificially expensive, creating regime uncertainty, and purposeful contraction of industrial output, helped to create the great depression. One can see then that government caused demand to fall, MS to contract and Unemployment to rise for over a decade.
|
31
|
21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00001-000
|
Is obesity a disease?
|
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. My opponent con states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice."He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)
|
16
|
59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000
|
Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?
|
Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...
|
27
|
9c362344-2019-04-18T16:59:33Z-00000-000
|
Should more gun control laws be enacted?
|
Gun Control Background checks and mental health evaluations should be given to potential to gun owners before the purchase firearms. There should also be mandatory laws for the ways in which guns should be stored, so that these weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. Not only this, but background checks and mental health evaluations should be given on a yearly basis. This should be the only form of gun control in the United States, that way guns will not be obtained by people with malicious intent.
|
35
|
c827393f-2019-04-18T17:49:30Z-00004-000
|
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
|
violent video games should be banned 1. Violent video games can improve our economy with high ratings. 2. Violent video games provide a safe outlet for angry feelings. (2007 study). 3. Violent video game ratings are going up, while murder rates have gone down. 4. Violent video games show violence, however people who play these video games do not use this violence in the real world. Refute to opponent's arguments Violent video games can do good because it gives people a chance to let their anger out.
|
19
|
48d25442-2019-04-18T13:13:57Z-00003-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
gay marriage The United States supreme court approve gay marriage on June 25, 2015.Although gay marriage was already allowed in 37 states, 13 states still banned gay marriage. Same sex couples should have the same rights/access to all the benefit as different sex couples. Marriage is a internationally recognize human right for ALL people since 1888 American Foundation for Equal Rights states (Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees) That men and women of full age or proper age without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry and to found a family.
|
13
|
31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00003-000
|
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
|
Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Both Fossil Fuels and Renewable Resources have their pros and cons. But for this debate, I'll argue that renewable resources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc) have more advantages than Fossil Fuels.
|
46
|
fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00063-000
|
Should net neutrality be restored?
|
Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality "Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment." Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: "Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle."
|
19
|
c69ebdd9-2019-04-18T13:14:29Z-00003-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment Again, the supreme court was never given any of this power, not to define marriage, not to include gay/bisexual people under the 14th ammendment or the Civil rights act of 1964. The Supreme Cout is given very few powers, those are 1) handle cases which have been appealed through the lower courts 2) facilitate law suits between states and against the federal goveronment and 3) enforce the law. Never to expound a law, define a law, interpret a law, etc.For this reason, the supreme courts decision acknowladging gay marriages is null and void, my opponent cannot come up with any clause showing otherwise. The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any "right to marriage," as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia, or otherwise, only to enforce the law as courts do, that means they nullified state laws prohibiting interracial marriages as they violate the constitution, they weren't using their power by this since the supreme court has no legal power, they were only using legal power which was already there, i.e. the 14th ammendment. And yes, this debate deeals with wether or not gay marriages should be acknowladged, the resolution isn't that it is immoral, thhis was only a key point backing up another point. Since the original definition of marriage is beteen a man and a woman, this is the correct definition, not definitions assighned later, for tis reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage, and thus should not be recognized as such. Though gay marriages appeared before in history, they only go back to Ancient Rome, not when marriage was invented, thus, the original definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and in no other form. For that reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage.
|
19
|
8b014bd0-2019-04-18T14:37:52Z-00002-000
|
Should gay marriage be legal?
|
Gay marriage should not be permitted Pro's entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading. Pro applies marriage requirements not imposed on others: special pleading and the opposite of fairness. At best you could conclude that homosexual marriages share a unique set of challenges. It does not follow that marriage rights, benefits and partnership should be removed. Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents. Pro has argued that gays make poor parents indirectly citing studies about step parents or assuming that mental health issues will have a large impact on child rearing. After a review of available studies 80+ on gay parents, no discernable negative difference was found between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. [18] Pro has not produced any direct research that cites that there is any discernable difference in homosexual adopted children because none is available. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry firmly concluded in 2013 that "[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults." [12] The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2002 stated, "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." They reiterated this in 2009 and 2013 in support of same sex adoption. The American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in 2004 that, "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service. Gay and Lesbian parents are more often to adopt performing a vital role in our society building families where there are none [19]. Pro here has argued that children should not be raised outside of marriage but without gay marriage she would cause just that. Gays adopt a higher percentage of unwanted children including children over six, minorities and children over three. Half the children adopted by gay parents have special needs. Pro's requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage. Pro's list of marriage requirements is unreasonable. Pro is pointing to one troubled group and recommended their marriage right be taken away. By pointing to another high-risk group I can demonstrate Pro's special pleading. Black marriages in America share many struggles associated with poverty. Blacks have a much higher incidence of mental illness [11] The majority of black children are raised by single parents, 67% when compared to 25% among whites indicating unstable relationships. [13]A much higher percentage of Black Americans are raised in poverty. [14] While Gay couples are more highly educated and earn a higher income [15] Blacks have higher rates of teen pregnancy. [16] I have already mentioned divorce rates as high as 70%. [2] Why is Pro not targeting black marriage before gay marriage when they are a greater threat as a higher percentage of the population, 13% vs 1%? Because her whole argument is a case of special pleading. The highly religious have higher levels of property crime [20] and higher rates of teen pregnancy due to irresponsible sexual practices. [21] They also have higher divorce rates [22] and commit more violent murder, bank robberies and violent sexual assault. What rights should they be denied? Certainly marriage rights to start. You cannot point to a target group that shares a set of problems and then deny certain rights. If fairness is the goal then a consistent criteria should apply to everyone both gays and straight. This is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. There are no criteria for marriages in the United States so this standard must be applied to Homosexuals. Emotional Health There is growing evidence that environment is a key factor in the issues attributed to homosexuals. [12] Adoption process: Homosexuals are typically more highly educated and earn a better income. Two qualities that make them stand up well in the adoption process and, incidentally two benefits they hold over straight marriages. I have already demonstrated that Homosexuals make fit parents. Since there is no measurable difference between children raised in adopted gay marriages it's safe to say that the standards work fairly well. I have cited a site that lists the general international requirements: Age, physical health, emotional health, criminal/child abuse history, marital/domestic partnership history, financial history and home environment. Note Gay Couples stand out in several areas. Highly educated are less likely to commit crime [24]. As I mentioned they have a lower incidence of divorce so they have longer marital histories. Good incomes make for stable home environment. If there is a higher incidence of mental health these potential parents are vetted or considered in the process. Compare this to heterosexual parents where there are no requirements and there is a 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals. [19] Rebuttals: II and III impact amplifier I have shown that homosexuals make fit parents in spite of any challenges. Premise: Heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society Here Pro throws heterosexuals into many broad categories and then simply asserts that children born into heterosexual marriages are superior in several categories. She has not compared this directly with studies referencing the quality of children adopted to homosexuals and the research does not support it. Subcategories of heterosexual marriages arguably are substandard parents and Pro is targeting homosexuals without a just cause. Relabelling gay marriage/resolution misrepresentation: If the resolution were gay marriage should be relabeled civil union no one would have accepted the debate. As defined, "Gay marriage - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that "traditional" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples." Pro mentions nothing about children and emphasizes rights and benefits. Who would think the debate is more about children than the rights and benefits specifically mentioned. Pro needs to accurately defend her resolution. Tax breaks are given to married couples to support marriage. Separate tax breaks are given to support children regardless of marriage. Financial benefits are a leading cause of divorce so obviously financial benefits assist in the stability of marriage although apparently straight couples need the help more. [26] I would say the other benefits I mention obviously help a relationship. III. Homosexual relationship infidelity Gay Marriages are not unstable. Gay marriages are not unstable and in fact quite the opposite is true. Pro mentions infidelity in support but that need not create instability. In fact there is a balance. Note that Pro has simply asserted that marriage is about monogamy without support. While gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners they are in tern less likely to pursue marriage and less likely to divorce than straight couples. [17] Roughly 2/3 of homosexual marriages are lesbian. While divorce any given year 2% of straight couples will get divorced while 1% of gay couples divorce. Gay Marriages are clearly as stable as straight marriages. Pro repeatedly asserts that I have dropped arguments or made bald assertions. I have appealed to common sense or common knowledge. Obviously marriage benefits improve a marriage and I can source this for Pro. A dropped argument must necessarily be ignored. If I argue that an argument is irrelevant or a case of special pleading I have addressed the argument. It's disingenuous of Pro to claim otherwise. Moral obligation: Pro's case is anything but fair. If she were honest she would argue for equal requirements for all marriage. Currently, there are none so she uses special pleading to exclude gays alone. This is disingenuous when many gay couples would meet her requirements and many straight couples would not. This includes many from the black, heavily religious and impoverished. Why is Pro targeting homosexuals when this is certainly not fair? Infertile couples/elderly marriage: Around 11% of woman will receive treatment for infertility and roughly 5% of couples choose not to have children. [25] Act of force ("men with guns") preventing marriage: Previously, if clerks were to begin granting marriage permits to homosexuals men with guns would show up to enforce the law. Culmination effect: Pro randomly chooses three requirements for marriages. I have demonstrated that Gay Marriages are not unstable. I have also shown that infidelity in Homosexual relationships does not lead to a higher divorce rate or any deficiency in child rearing. Pro is inconsistent in applying these criteria and if she were various forms of gay marriage would be permitted when the relationships could be shown to be stable, mentally healthy and have a high level of fidelity. - It's as simple as my introduction. Pro presents a well-organized case that is not valid or sound. It's not valid because the internal logic does not arrive at the final conclusion. External research does not back up her premises so it is not sound. [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com... [18] http://tinyurl.com... [19] http://tinyurl.com... [20] http://tinyurl.com... [21] http://tinyurl.com... [22] http://tinyurl.com... [23] http://tinyurl.com... [24] http://tinyurl.com... [25] http://tinyurl.com... [26] http://tinyurl.com...
|
27
|
46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000
|
Should more gun control laws be enacted?
|
Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER
|
21
|
abd6ace-2019-04-18T19:16:43Z-00003-000
|
Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?
|
OCTOBER PF UN prioritize poverty reduction vs environmental concerns Writer and environmental activist Paul Brooks wrote " In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops" Because I believe that the commodification of the environment is not only morally reprehensible, but a destructive policy I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection. I oppose the resolution for 3 main reasons 1. Global Warming outweighs everything 2. Global warming makes global poverty and famine worse Observation: In Conflict Professor Jonathan Turley reports "Various countries including China made clear that they will continue to put economic development ahead of the environmental, even if global warming threatens a worldwide ecological disaster. Most startling was China"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, told a forum. China has already destroyed its own environmental and may be killing between 500,000 and 750,000 people a year due to environmental violations and pollution. It is now becoming the largest produced of greenhouse gases and its pollution is causing major environmental problems in countries as far away as the United States." Developing countries will have a higher output of greenhouse gas emissions, and thus increase the effects of global warming. Energy infrastructure in developing nations tends to be based on fossil fuels and other polluting agents. Poverty reduction worldwide will require an increase in carbon emitting infrastructure in developing nations. Furthermore power plants and other such greenhouse gas-emitting infrastructure are common areas of work for those living in poverty especially in countries such as the U.S. Contention one: Global Warming outweighs everything, including poverty The condition of global warming caused by an increase in carbon emissions over the past hundred years is possibly one of the most pressing concerns facing humanity. Environmental Scientist, Bill Henderson reports, "The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share." Action on global warming is critical. Unless we prioritize environmental protection their may be no people to lift from poverty left on the earth. Contention two: Global warming makes global poverty and famine worse The economic base of most poor countries is agricultural. However the crops grown by this poor farmers are sensitive to the results of global climate change. Not only does this make the problem of famine in impoverished countries worse but also Global warming will cause further environmental disasters that will have a massive negative effect on those living in poverty as well as everyone else in the world. As Reuters reported in 2005, "Global warming is likely to significantly diminish food production in many countries and greatly increase the number of hungry people, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says. The FAO says in a report that food distribution systems and their infrastructure would be disrupted and that the severest impact would likely be in sub-Saharan African countries. "There is strong evidence that global climate is changing and that the social and economic costs of slowing down global warming and of responding to its impacts will be considerable," the report said. Many scientists fear rising temperatures, blamed mainly on heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels, will melt ice caps, raise sea levels by almost a metre by the end of this century and bring more floods, droughts and storms. Global warming would increase the amount of land classified as being either arid or insufficiently moist in the developing world. In Africa the amount of this type of harsh land could increase by as much as 90 million hectares by 2008, an area nearly four times the size of Britain. Changes in temperature and rainfall as well as an increase in the number of so-called "extreme weather events" such as floods will bring with them potentially devastating effects. The world suffered 600 floods in the past two-and-a-half years, which claimed the lives of about 19,000 people and caused $US25 billion in damages. That excludes December's devastating tsunami in south-east Asia that killed more than 180,000. FAO says scientific studies show that global warming would lead to an 11 per cent decrease in rain-fed land in developing countries and in turn a serious decline in cereal production. "Sixty-five developing countries, representing more than half of the developing world's total population in 1995, will lose about 280 million tons of potential cereal production as a result of climate change," FAO said. The effect of climate change on agriculture could increase the number of people at risk of hunger, particularly in countries already saddled with low economic growth and high malnourishment levels. "In some 40 poor, developing countries, with a combined population of 2 billion... production losses due to climate change may drastically increase the number of undernourished people, severely hindering progress in combating poverty and food insecurity," the report said."
|
22
|
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00001-000
|
Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
|
Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution
|
30
|
9a5532b3-2019-04-18T16:00:44Z-00002-000
|
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
|
Skull art challenge Let your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popular
|
31
|
427a0855-2019-04-18T11:43:00Z-00000-000
|
Is obesity a disease?
|
Sports and Obesity Sports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you"re a Jew.
|
50
|
b8496877-2019-04-18T17:21:16Z-00005-000
|
Should everyone get a universal basic income?
|
everyone should be christian According to me everyone should not be christian because there are different people with different faith and you just cant say that only Christianity is good. For me all religions are good
|
29
|
3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00062-000
|
Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?
|
Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants. A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, "Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.
|
23
|
4a9c9344-2019-04-18T13:30:56Z-00002-000
|
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
|
Abortion should be legal up through the second trimester, regardless of circumstance Rebuttal 1A: This case was more of a defense; just in case you claimed that death by abortion was lesened by Roe V. Wade.Rebuttal 1B:My opponent tries to debunk my statsitcal evidence by quoting from his ownn source. He claims they are "one of the most pretigious medical journals on Earth". However, this study does not reflect his claim. Let me give you information about a woman's eligibility for the study from his own source excludes many women.In a study regarding egtopic pregnancy and early birth, they exclude women who had an egtopic pregnancy that originally was in their study. They excluded women who had more than one abortion. They exclude large groups of women to where only 1.1% remain. This allows for the study's data to be easily manipulated. They excluded women, as I have shown, that would contradict their study. I would like voters to disregard this source; as it is obviously manipulated. My source is a compilation of over 59 studies; while his study is faulty and only has one. I urge voters to hold this point in my favor.Rebuttal 1C:The site itself is not the problem. If the study itself is credible, there is no need to deny it. The study itself is from the Journel of Reproductive Medicine. This study is a compliation of 59 studies. This proves its validity. He ignores the 2007 study as he claims that other studies I quoted were irrelevant since some of them were in the past. The studies covered the times from the 70's to recent years. that is what makes that study so reliable. Thank you for that. Rebuttal 1D:My opponent quote a study that seems to be flawed. As my other study explains:" Abortion increases a woman's overall risk of breast cancer by 30 per cent. The risk is likely much higher in women who have a first abortion at a young age, or who have a family history of breast cancer. Since 1957, 23 of 37 worldwide studies show an increased breast cancer risk with abortion, a risk as high as 310 per cent. Ten of fifteen U.S. studies confirm the abortion-breast cancer link. The biological rationale for breast cancer development is related to the woman's unprotected internal exposure to estrogen when a pregnancy is abruptly terminated early in gestation. The magnitude of the risk has, until recently, been hidden by studies of poor quality, many of which have failed to separate induced abortion from low-risk spontaneous miscarriage. The medical establishment is often slow to accept and respond to emerging data, slowed further, in this case, by the conflicting politics of abortion. A history of previous induced abortion(s) may play a role in cancers of the reproductive system and rectal cancers. Inconsistencies between studies and countries where the studies are done, in addition to the fact that in the literature, spontaneous and induced abortions are often not separated, make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Recent studies have connected a higher risk of cervical and ovarian cancers to previous abortions, though the degree of risk varies from study to study. A consistent finding has been the protective effect of full-term pregnancies against the onset of cancers of the reproductive system. Researchers have found a connection between abortion and rectal cancer. With reproductive and rectal cancers on the increase in women, more studies are needed, specifically to examine the connection between abortion and cancer. Subsequent pregnancies are negatively affected by induced abortion. The main complications are: cervical incompetence leading to future miscarriages; uterine perforations and placenta previa with serious implications to the health of the woman and her child(ren) in later pregnancies; and ectopic pregnancies which, if undiagnosed and not treated, can lead to a woman's death. Forty-nine studies of preterm or premature births from Europe and North America found increased risks ranging from 30 per cent to 510 per cent. The consequence of this significantly increased risk of prematurity after abortion is that the rate of cerebral palsy among premature infants weighing less than 1500 grams at birth is 38 times greater than among the general population. Induced abortion, in other words, is directly responsible for many thousands of cases of cerebral palsy - in North America alone - that otherwise would not have occurred. Despite the data which point to the link between induced abortion and future serious health risks, many North-American research studies fail to point these out. Numerical data should be carefully compared to research abstracts and conclusions because they often do not correlate; in other words, where data clearly indicate increased health risks, they are often minimized in the abstracts and conclusions of medical articles. In light of the growing knowledge of the impact of abortion on the rate of prematurity, abortion providers soon incur greatly increased liability for obtaining informed consent for women contemplating abortion. Women die from abortion-related problems but, owing to irregular and biased reporting, it is difficult to know how many. Reasons for maternal mortality related to abortion are many, including hemorrhage, infection, embolism, ectopic pregnancy, and cardiomyopathy. Coding deaths in hospitals and reasons for death on death certificates frequently record only the presenting problem as the cause of death, which results in many abortion-related deaths going unreported. The American Medical Association (AMA) relies on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for its statistics concerning abortion-related deaths and, given that the CDC uses hospital and clinic records (which underreport maternal deaths from abortion) for its data, the AMA does not recognize the full extent of abortion-related deaths. At most risk of abortion-related deaths are African-American and other minority women. A large-scale, authoritative Scandinavian study establishes post-pregnancy death rates within one year that are nearly four times greater among women who abort their pregnancies than among women who bear their babies. The suicide rate is nearly six times greater among aborting women than among women who give birth. These findings refute the oft-heard claim that induced abortion is safer than childbirth. There is an urgent need for independent studies of maternal mortality related to abortion, and medical facilities should be required to keep more accurate and informative records so that women may be better served in this area." (1) Obviously, Pro's sources are not correct.Mental Health Rebuttal:I will let my source do the talking:" Women who have abortions are at risk of emotional difficulties after the procedure, especially those with pre-existing factors such as relationship problems, ambivalence about their abortion, adolescence, previous psychiatric or emotional problems, pressure by others into making a decision to abort, or religious or philosophical values that are at odds with aborting a pregnancy. The prevailing interpretation of post-abortion grief, depression, guilt, anger, and anxiety in abortion clinics and research studies in North America is that they are due, not to the procedure, but to a woman's pre-existing disposition to psychological problems. Where support through counseling is offered (for example, in Sweden) to pregnant women who are not sure if they should or can carry their pregnancy to term, they are more likely not to abort. Given the evidence that women in certain risk groups are more emotionally vulnerable after an abortion, should abortion clinics and medical facilities consider recommending against abortion in their cases? This question has become crucial given recent findings that women who abort are much likelier to commit suicide. Informed consent for the psychological well-being of women, post-abortion, is an issue which health care professionals should address. After an abortion, women are more likely to display self-destructive behaviors including suicide and attempts at suicide; mutilation and various forms of punishment (including repeat abortions and sterilization); drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse; and eating disorders as a way of denying or minimizing the guilt, pain and numbness they feel. Women who abort often have trouble bonding with the children of future pregnancies and have a higher chance of eventually abusing them, which leads to a cyclical pattern of abuse-abortion- abuse. It seems clear, given the frequency of negative behavioral outcomes for women after abortion, that more thought needs to be given to appropriate therapy for women (and their children) who are at risk. Many women seek support in recovering from post-abortion distress, often years after the abortion. Project Rachel, The Healing Choice, and The National Office for Reconciliation and Healing are among the many therapeutic options that have evolved in the wake of widely- practised abortion. Women's marital or partner or family relationships can be significantly affected by abortion. After abortion, many relationships come to an end, and if the woman stays with her partner or husband, sexual dysfunction often results as does difficulty bonding with children born later on. When a woman or adolescent girl has been coerced into having an abortion, typical reactions include feelings of betrayal (by partners or family members), anger, depression, sadness, and breakdown of trust and intimacy in relationships. Some men are negatively affected and sense a loss of control and pride, especially when their partner has had an abortion without their being consulted "Suppressed mourning" has very negative outcomes, often leading to feelings of numbness and/or hostility and anger, and to difficulties in forming future relationships and in bonding with later-born children; in some instances, post-abortion trauma can lead to actual abuse of later children. (1) It is clear my case has a better logical, ethical, and moral basis than Pro's. Vote Con.Anime OP:http://tinyurl.com...;1. http://tinyurl.com...
|
45
|
a0424d08-2019-04-18T15:22:20Z-00002-000
|
Should the penny stay in circulation?
|
Murder should stay illegal Rebuttal 1) If murder is legal someone would become hitler I have no idea how to even respond to the invalidity of this because hitler became hitler when murder was illegal. It being legal would not stop dictators from rising, look around the world. Rebuttal 2 ) Murder is worse than slavery No it's not. Slaves were kept in cages, beaten, raped, had their eyes plucked out, dipped in hot oil, eaten alive by dogs, starved to death, and so many other inhumane things that I cannot even list. Death is a much better escape to slavery. Extend arguments, as they are still dropped and I'm having to respond to rebuttals that are non sequiturs to the actual resolution.
|
5
|
19d4ef13-2019-04-18T18:08:20Z-00001-000
|
Should social security be privatized?
|
Science should be privatized 1. Competition This is far from being the same argument. Scientist 2 is not legally obligated to buy from this hypothetical corporation. People not knowing where their tax money goes is not a good thing. If the government is to represent us, we must know where our money is going. My opponent has not shown how stealing from people to fund their competitors is morally justifiable. 3. Political motivations vs. private motivations Basically, advertising. If Organization 1 gives Organization 2 a grant, Organization 2 repays the debt by putting Organization 1's name into public eye. O1. Industry-sponsored studies tend to be friendly to industries A pro-government bias would be extremely relevant if the government funded the creation of the drug in the first place. Facts unfavorable to the government would likely be excluded, as was the case with the corporations my opponent mentioned earlier. My opponent states that he would not trust research on the effectiveness of government programs solely to the government, but then says that the government cannot rely solely on industry to do the research. What he has failed to do, however, is provide what would be a balance between the two, how responsibilities would be divided, etc. .. Without this, these statements are contradictory. My opponent says that 2% of the budget is "hardly a bloated section in need of drastic cutting. " So then what is? Also, 2% of $16 trillion is $320 billion. That is still a lot of money. And what about the compounding effect of the supposedly small, irrelevant percentages of the budget? If the number of irrelevance is as low as 7%, and all programs with a percentage of 7% or lower on the chart my opponent has supplied are added together, the result is 26% of the budget, or $4.16 trillion. That is certainly quite a lot for sections that at first seem irrelevant. Thank you to Citrakayah for a fun, smart debate. This was a very good debate on the issues my opponent chose to debate. But 3 of my original 4 arguments were conceded to begin with. Those arguments strongly prove my point, and were accepted as such by my opponent.
|
39
|
5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00006-000
|
Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
|
Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Rules 1. No trolling 2. Please keep some sort of format when responding 3. BOP is shared 4. 1st round is a constructive speech round Definitions Federal minimum wage: The wage set by the American government as the lowest possible wage for American workers set at $7.25 an hour. https://www.dol.gov...... I negate the resolution that the US federal government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for the following contentions: Contention 1: States are much better actors The economies of different states vary drastically for a reason. Certain states may be able to only support one minimum wage due to circumstances such as the labor pool, average education of workers, and how many businesses pay at minimum wage to any of their employees. Mr. Holzer, a previous chief economist of the Department of Labor wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015 and has stated the following: "In a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills – including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants – are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants." http://www.brookings.edu...... We can see proof of this in the status quo with the failed project in Washington D.C where the minimum wage was raised, which failed miserably as there was little job growth in industries with low-wage workers as well as the fact that benefits and expenses on employees were cut so businesses could stay in the red. http://www.forbes.com...... This gives a valid example of how a minimum wage can actually harm the very people we are trying to help federally, which applies to the whole country. However, individual states are more understanding of their own limitations and can fairly regulate, and possibly raise, the minimum wage to fit the needs of the people while not being too stressful on the job market. A much more reasonable way to fix the problem would be to mandate that states raise the minimum wage by at least five percent, and at most 15%. We could see a moderate increase in revenue for people that could push more people into jobs with a higher incentive to join the labor market. However, as it stands, we cannot pass the resolution on the pretext that we are relying on the federal minimum wage, and not the states. Contention 2: Increase price for consumers Businesses exist for a one, primary goal: to make a profit. So, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see that businesses would be paying more on their employees and less on their products while demanding a higher price to still maintain a profit. A fifteen-dollar minimum wage, which is a huge increase for many states, would no doubt have this affect. In fact, we can look at Breitbart in August of 2015 which shows this exact problem occurring as pizzas, an everyday consumer item, cost thirty dollars at one pizzeria. This is only one example listed in the article. There have been estimates in the article from the National Federation of independent businesses that point out other harms as well as illuminate the problems associated with the minimum wage hike as well which includes the following escribing a possibility of legislation that would come through the state congress in California: "…The state's 2013 legislation raising California's minimum wage rate to $9 per hour in 2014 and $10 by 2016 would shrink the state's economy by $5.7 billion in the next 10 years and would cost the state roughly 68,000 jobs–63% of which would come from small businesses." http://www.breitbart.com...... We can see another example of this problem if we were to look at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 where it is shown that: "• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle's markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management's expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef. • San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018)." https://www.aei.org...... We can clearly see from the examples shown that there is no such thing as a minimum wage that does not affect prices for consumers, showing that there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the personal need of people working the minimum wage and the consumer's need for affordable goods and services. Since the fifteen dollar minimum wage does not account for this, we need to negate, if only to keep a fair and balanced system that can be tweaked later to bring about better effects. Contention 3: Counter-plan I will concede the following, the minimum wage needs to be increased moderately and on the state level to ensure that the previously mentioned points do not take effect. What also needs to happen is that we need to guarantee that there is a happy medium between the hike of the price for consumer goods and the individual need of money to support families for the people on the minimum wage. That being said, we should also incentivize getting into higher education and high-skilled jobs through prioritizing education in less affluent regions of the country and try to make college more attractive to those who come from poverty. Finally, we need to ensure that small businesses do not fail, so an annual audit of small businesses in all states should be done by the Department of Labor to ensure that progress is being made economically and to combat poverty and raise the standard of living. This will also help determine what states would need higher minimum or lower minimum wages. Until my opponent can refute my counter plan as a worse idea, we can't pass today's resolution with a clean conscience as we can tell there is a much better solution that could be enacted. As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution and favor the counter plan instead to ensure that the previous points mentioned will not occur and we can have job security. Thank you.
|
47
|
ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00002-000
|
Is homework beneficial?
|
Homework Should Not Be Required Thanks Danielle! Point 1 She claims that I provided no explanation of how the date is relevant. This is false. I claimed (and sourced the claim) that the education system has changed since those studies were published and also showed how inaccurate the studies were due to the fact that the percentage of people accounted for are 0.00000947368% of children! She drops this and merely claims that I fail to explain to explain how the date is relevant to the majority of her contentions. This is false as we can clearly see. She then makes a mathematical error in the dates. She claims that her sources are from 8 - 20 years ago. In fact that are from 8 - 26 years ago and I clearly sourced the claim that education and homework has significantly changed in the last 3 decades (see my source [2] from last round). She drops this. She falsely states that I must prove that homework assigned then vs now is different in quantity. This is, as I said, false. All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it's harder. If it's easier then the opposite is applicable. So the fact that the system of education was different then is a valid reason to consider her sources (at the least, the ones from 20+ years ago); the differences are too large to compare to the present. The fact that my sources are outdated is irrelevant as my intentions and uses of them are different. If I was using those sources for statistical evidence or about the education system (which she does) then outdated sources are unacceptable. If I'm using them for more generic purposes (which I am) then the date is not applicable as it does not affect my point. She cites some Con homework information in my source. I am aware that there is information in my source that I disagree with. I was using that source to reinforce a point that I agreed with in the source. I agree with some of the claims made however I disagree with the sources impact analysis and conclusion of information. Debaters are not expected to agree with everything said in every one of their sources. They are expected to agree with the statement that they are using the source to reinforce. [Counterplan] 1A. This is false. I never said that only beneficial homework is allowed. This would be ideal but not once in my counterplan was the word beneficial mentioned. In fact I only mentioned the word beneficial once in my entire round and it was not in the context in which my opponent states (anybody can check my clicking Ctrl f and searching the word beneficial whilst viewing the debate). 1B. Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation of the counterplan. I never mentioned that it had to be beneficial, nor did I say that beneficial things have to be mandatory. Here is a remind of my counterplan: Homework should be given in moderate quantity (in short). This is about homework QUANTITY (ie. how much homework is given) NOT homework QUALITY (ie. how beneficial it is). I extend the counterplan. I'll drop the claim that she quasi concedes in order to continue onwards with the debate. I'll allow voters to consider whether or not this should be viewed as a concession or not. Point 2 The point that she fails to see regarding the burden on parents is that it is in extremely low quantity and I provided accurate statistics showing that this was clearly a minority. The statistics clearly show that the majority of parents are satisfied with homework. Whether I can or can't cite a court case regarding homework quantity is irrelevant. That argument was only made as an alternative to the counterplan. Since she fails to refute the counterplan, it still stands and due to this her entire objection is negated given that all homework will be reduced to a more suitable quantity. She persists the raise the objection that family time is lost. If anything, family time is created. It is a psychological truism that teenagers (on balance) become more distant from parents and others during this period of their lives, this means that they spend less time with their parents and family [1]. Homework often involves parents helping the child and parents interacting with the child, as she correctly in his initial arguments. We can conclude that since teenagers are distant from their parents and given that parents often involves themselves with their children family time is created indirectly through homework. Different students of different abilities will not take identical amounts of time which is why, within the status quo, there are sets which are based on examination and classwork. Depending on their abilities they are each set different amounts of homework so that it will fulfill a set amount of time [3]. Whilst students are more than welcome to spend additional time on homework, schools give recommended amounts of time and usually make this clear [4]. [2] The fact that parents help with homework is a good thing. The fact that they do it is not. Since setting is based on classwork and examination parents doing homework has no negative effects. The homeworks purpose is to show a child's understanding of a topic and reinforce their knowledge of the topic from their classwork. If their parents do it then it is the same as what she proposes (ie. no homework) because they are not receiving the benefits that homework has to offer. For the students that actually do their homework, they are benefiting from homework. This contention presents no mitigation to my burden since all it does is show that some people aren't doing homework and some are. Some people benefiting from homework is better than nobody benefiting from it. She says I dropped his argument regarding different home environments however the counterplan negates this without me having to address it since there will be a lower homework quantity this means that these people will not be overwhelmed with homework - homework is not used as a primary source of determining sets. Schools also take into account financial states [5]. She helps explain the very purpose of homework itself. She points out that homework cannot be monitored in regards to approach and therefore students may not grasp or understand the material properly. If they do not understand it and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher's duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them. The lesson is designed to teach all students generally. The homework shows specific pupils progress and understanding of that lesson which teachers can then monitor and intervene if necessary in order to help said student to understand it properly [6]. There is a reason as to why it is a condition of the job. It allows teachers to have an individual understanding of a student's grasp of the lesson so that they can help students that are struggling [6]. Point 3 The reason I asked for sourcing is because I wanted evidence that homework actually digs into and reduces the time that people spend on certain things. Often people can still do their one activity and also do other activities in the same amount of time that they usually would do even without having the first activity, so I was merely asking for confirmational purposes. The CP negates this point since these sources reference to there being too much time being spent on homework due to excessive quantity. The fact that these activities are provided in schools is NOT irrelevant due to the fact that IF you are buying her claim that homework cuts into activity time, students will not be missing out on these activities since they will be doing it in school. She makes a an argument riddled with fallacies. She claims that homework cuts into time for anything. The fact of the matter is that schools cuts into people's time, work cuts into people's time, sleep cuts into people's time, etc. Should people stop going to school, work and stop sleeping in order to do activities? The answer that she will most likely give is no. So why is homework an exception? People still manage to have part time jobs within the status quo, in the UK homework is compulsory and there are a record number of students in part time jobs at the moment [7]. This completely negates my opponent's claims of a supposed negative correlation. She misunderstands the counterplan. He says that I cannot ensure that less homework will be given by specific teachers. The counterplan is a proposed change in the status quo, thus making it a law for teachers to only be allowed to set a limited amount of homework. Point 4 1 - Homework counts for nothing and only is there to show a student's understanding of a lesson. So whilst parents cheating is discouraged, it still has no negative benefits that give my opponent's proposed changes any advantage over mine. 2 - There is no evidence presented in support of this claim. 3 - Whilst cheating can be the case and the same objection to 4 - 1 is applicable here. Her statistics are unreliable. They are posted on a forum site and a bias one too. The site stophomework.com. The website makes little attempt to give credibility to these statistics and the only effort made is where they provide 3 fake links that lead to nonexistent / fake pages. [Conclusion] She provides her sources in an external link which shows a poor demonstration of conduct. She set a character limit and this limit was violated. I have abided by the rules set and not attempted to bypass them in the way that she does. I ask that voters vote on the conduct point as this gave her additional space for rebuttals and gave me limited space for counter rebuttals. More generally, the decision is simple. A vote for the Con is clear at this point in the debate Sources [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bbc.in... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://dailym.ai...
|
35
|
d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00037-000
|
Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
|
Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games. Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV.' What the teens did represents one of the worst-case scenarios imagined by those who advocate for government to limit the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, such scenarios are very few and very far between. And Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision preventing the state of California from instituting a ban on the sale of such games to minors. The decision was steeped in legal precedent concerning free speech and censorship. But make no mistake: The Supreme Court's decision in no way negates or devalues the decades of scientific research that have been conducted demonstrating that the consumption of violent media leads to increases in aggressive and anti-social behavior."
|
7
|
85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00001-000
|
Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?
|
Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line "---" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation."This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote."I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting."You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they 'serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, "We need you to stay away from children" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections."The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not "'hate'" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral."Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.
|
8
|
75863939-2019-04-18T18:29:52Z-00002-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Abortion should be illegal. Let me address my opponent's points."Let's consider abortion. My opponent in the second round clarified that people who are raped should be able to have an abortion. But take a look at the fetus. The fetus knows very little of anything inside the womb. The fetus does not know if it was the product of a rape, a product of marital sex, or the product of two teenagers messing around. But my opponent in this debate says that a fetus isn't worth as much as the mother if the mother was raped. The value of life in this case in unequal because the mother still maintains her right to life while the fetus is denied the right to life."So now you are arguing against abortion? You have took the CON position, thus you must for abortion because you want abortion to be legal. I am saying rape should be an exception because if not, it would be like forcing someone to get pregnant and have a baby. How fair is that? Nobody can be forced to have a baby. "But what's so wrong with getting an abortion if two teens were screwing around and they have the financial capacity to pay for an abortion?"It is the mother's fault for getting pregnant, therefore, abortion should be denied to her. They should have known better, it's there fault. They would never learn their lesson if abortion was an option to them. Women should have the right to control there own body, but they did control their own body by having sexual intercourse and causing the pregnancy, thus, abortion should be illegal to people who caused the pregnancy themselves. If they did not want a baby, they should not have gotten pregnant. It is that simple."Why are you suddenly saying it's wrong for the killing of a fetus produced under consensual sex?"Because they chose to get pregnant themselves, they caused it themselves, and now they want abortion? I am saying rape should be an exception because if not, it would be like forcing someone to get pregnant and have a baby. How fair is that? Nobody can be forced to have a baby.My opponent's argument is that abortion should be legal for all women, even if they willingly caused the pregnancy. My opponent argues that even if a woman willingly got pregnant, abortion should be illegal. That is illogical because the woman could have avoided all the trouble by simply not getting pregnant! They decided to get pregnant, they should bear the result of their actions.I look forward to seeing my opponent's response.
|
44
|
542768fb-2019-04-18T16:30:46Z-00002-000
|
Should election day be a national holiday?
|
The "Irish Potato Famine" was a genocide against the Irish "The denial of aid, forcing the Irish to either leave or die is a form of systematic extermination. My main example is Holodomor, which is literally Ukrainian for Extermination by Hunger. This is the exact same as what happened in Ireland. According to How the Irish Saved Civilization, a popular book about Irish history, while the blight may have caused the potatoes to die, it was the British that caused the Irish to die. The Brits, much as Saddam had done to the Assyrians and Kurds during the food for oil program, denied aid to Irish Catholics, and other lower class peasants. According to the late historian Howard Zinn, the Irish were subject to complete extermination policies by the British government. My opponent also acknowledged that the aid did reach Ireland, yet it did not reach the Irish. The British used nature and bureaucracy, rather than guns and massacres. During the Famine the London Times had called for the starving Catholics, not to be converted, but left to die, or even shot. In Tipperary, according to the well known Irish Historian, in County Cork, the landlords had done this to their tenants, and had soldiers shoot those who could not pay their rent." My opponent does not seem to understand that the British did provide aid. QUEEN VICTORIA GAVE 2000 POUNDS. The BRITISH ALLOWED RELIEF to reach IRELAND, if the British didn't want the Irish they would have stopped the relief. "1. Classification -People are divided into "us and them"-The Irish were treated as second class citizens through the Penal Laws" This is what happened to the Blacks in the U.S it is still not called a genocide. "3. Dehumanization -"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases."-The Irish were referred to as "Papists" and "left footers"" This is what happened to the Blacks in the U.S it is still not called a genocide. 4. Organization -"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."-The Royal Irish Constabulary was established in 1826 to enforce the Penal Laws on the Irish, and they did so with brutal force" The police did this to Black people in America. 5. Polarization - "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."-The London Times calls for the death of the Irish people. Many White people also wanted to kill Blacks in America. 6. Preparation -"Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."-This had been done through the the Corn Laws and the expansion of the Penal Laws Blacks were separated from whites by segregation laws, but still it is not considered genocide. 7. Extermination -"It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human"- Coogan states that many in Britiain called the famine an "Act of God" and said that the Irish were just Papists and left footers Yet they still provided relief. 8. Denial -"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes.."-The Genocide is now called the potato famine, and has become the punch line of anti-Irish jokes." The real cause of the famine was the Phytophthora infestans, which infected potatoes. This is what cause the famine. "Finally the Negation has refused to cite any sources while I have cited multiple sources. This should be interpreted as the Negations arguments are not reliable and therefore invalid." My opponent's ONLY SOURCE is a CONSPIRACY BOOK called The Famine Plot. This book is clearly BIASED as it is only stating the famine was genocide. My opponent's sources are all based of this book. This makes his arguments invalid because he cannot cross confirm it. On the other hand the sources bellow are all different which makes it possible to check for false evidence. As I said earlier, the cause of the famine was a fungus that attacked the potatoes which left them inedible. My opponent has not proved that the famine was caused by the British and only has one source. Sources: http://www.britannica.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...(Ireland) http://www.historyplace.com... http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...
|
45
|
cff9b0f2-2019-04-18T15:14:59Z-00002-000
|
Should the penny stay in circulation?
|
Abortion should stay legal I agree, that my definition of a human being has flaws. The main idea behind that was that abortion is not actually killing a human being, sine an embryo is still not having the same characteristics as a grown human being. It doesn't even feel pain until it's at least 24 weeks old. (1) Abortion is not a murder since, the fetus only has the POTENTIAL to be a human and is yet not a human. Murder is wrong, but abortion is not a murder. 1: http://www.motherjones.com...
|
30
|
be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00003-000
|
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
|
Right to carry arms Being Side Con, I wish to counter my opponent"s claim that private citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. I concur with my opponent"s criterion for judging this debate and ask all voters to not consider any outside information not explicitly brought up in the debate or the sources. That being said, Side Con"s three contentions are as follows: 1. Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. 2. Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. 3. Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. Contention 1: Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime. The NRA loves telling the public stories of heroic storeowners hiding guns in their desks, successfully taking down thieves and various other assailants with lethal or non-lethal blows. Concealed firearms are thus portrayed as saviors. The NRA, however, does not tell every story. Meet Philip Davis, an Alabama police officer on duty on December 3rd, 2009. Davis pulls over pharmacist Bart Johnson for speeding. As Davis gave Johnson his ticket, Johnson "fired one shot" (1) from a concealed firearm, killing Davis instantly. Johnson had "obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2007," a permit he had renewed in 2009. Davis is one of 516 people killed by individuals with concealed weapons, weapons legally concealed (2). Looking at an even broader scale, we find an alarming amount of violence arising from handgun use. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the weapons used in 70% to 80% of all homicides committed from 1993 to 2011 (3). Using the lower number, 70%, we can therefore estimate criminals killed 148,676 people with handguns. And this does not include non-lethal shootings, nor the violence of the past year. Considering the weapons themselves, we find a very dangerous prospect: handguns are exceedingly easy to use. This is not to say a knife or a baseball bat cannot be deadly, but a semi-automatic handgun has a greater range and ease of use than either. All one needs to do is pull back a safety and pull the trigger repeatedly. Furthermore, the clip size of handguns can lead to multiple deaths in mere seconds. An AR-24 Armalite 9mm pistol has a 15 magazine; assuming the gun-wielder is a poor marksman, needing two shots to kill someone, he/she could still take out 7 people (4). So how does this link to the resolution? Quite simply, as useful as concealed firearms seem for self-defense, they are definitely used for criminal, homicidal purposes. They are a threat to public safety. And though some lives have been saved by handguns, just as many, if not more, have been lost. Contention 2: Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. Most would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning a concealed handgun. Yet, often times, the handgun user is NOT a law-abiding citizen, but a convicted criminal regaining his/her gun rights. Several states, such as Washington and Cleveland, allow released felons to regain their gun rights as long as minimal requirements have been met. Since 1995, 3,300 convicted felons in Washington have regained their gun rights (5). 13% of these felons have engaged in further criminal activity with these firearms including first-degree murder, drive-by-shootings, and child rape. The process barring these individuals from acquiring firearms is atrocious. Aside from those felons incarcerated for first-degree murder and other such crimes, "judges have no discretion to reject petitions" (5) for criminals regaining their gun rights. The federal government can do little to stop this gun proliferation; due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the federal government must leave gun restoration policy to the states. And, as we've seen, many of them are not doing good jobs. Contention 3: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense As this contention clashes directly with my opponent"s first contention, this suffices to rebut his argument. First, we must realize guns are rarely used for self-defense. The NRA claims guns have been used to stop approximately 2.5 million crimes a year; analysis by the National Crime Victimization survey actually finds handguns are used for self-defense a mere 67,470 a year. In 2010 alone, there were 8,275 firearms based homicides, as compared to 230 justifiable self-defense homicides (6). My opponent brings up an alleged deterrent effect, as "criminals never know who is armed." There are a few problems with this analysis. First off, an exposed firearm is far more intimidating than a concealed one. If anyone saw someone with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle, they would likely stay away. Second, this analysis assumes every criminal will make the logical step, assuming anyone might have a gun. This is far from likely. If a criminal is mentally ill, he is not likely to take this logical step. The same applies to a criminal addicted to malevolent substances, such as PCP. This also ignores criminal desperation; if a criminal needs the money to satisfy a drug addiction, or even to put bread on the table, he will disregard the possibility of any random person having a gun. Finally, my opponent cites the research of Dr. John Lott, a "shall-issue" law enthusiast whose research is often cited by pro-gun advocates. Yet there are flaws in Lott"s analysis as well. We must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, as Lott"s research was funded by the Olin Foundation, a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country. Secondly, Lott based his theories on econometric data points, rather than psychological data taken from case studies, surveys, and experiments with criminals; the latter data is far more compelling. Even if we look at the study itself, a revised data set of Lott"s study indicated the effect of "right-to-carry laws" had no statistical significance (7) on violent crime. Thus, this change was due to factors beyond the controls established by Lott"s analysis. Finally, concealed handguns have limited stopping power and poor accuracy in the hands of an untrained marksman. The entry and exit wound on handguns is smaller than for other weapons. Most don"t have a scope.. Even gun advocate Chris Bird notes a handgun is "the least effective fire-arm for self-defense" (8). Since these weapons are so rarely used for self-defense, rarely deter criminals, and are poor self-defense items in the first place, right to carry laws are not the best way to promote public safety. With this in mind, I would like to refute my opponent"s other argument, his second contention; Pro Contention 2: The public isn't ready to handle gun responsibility. I will keep this refutation brief for sake of clash in other rounds, but the main issue with my opponent's argument is a false correlation. Not only does correlation not assume causation, but the statistics my opponent asserts may not even have to deal with gun responsibility. The statistics only suggest people are less likely to be arrested for violent crime. This does not mean people are "better" or "more responsible." Dozens of other factors come into play. The recent economic crisis (thus limiting funds to purchase guns), the possibility of increased law enforcement, or decreases in drug abuse could all be responsible for this trend. The confounding variables severely hamper the validity of these statistics. With that, I close the first round. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.vpc.org... 2. http://www.vpc.org... 3. http://www.bjs.gov... 4. http://www.armalite.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nap.edu... 8. http://www.nap.edu...
|
31
|
b27c6acc-2019-04-18T18:00:31Z-00001-000
|
Is obesity a disease?
|
As the obesity epidemic grows in scope, so too does the "blame game." point 3: Fast food restaurants promote unhealthy and huge meals. Sub A: As the health care costs of treating obesity-related illnesses mount, some are looking to place the blame for increasing obesity rates on the purveyors of fast food. Facing fierce competition for customer loyalty, fast food chains such as McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's have promoted their over-sized burgers, extra-large servings for fries, and buckets of soda, all at low prices. fast food restaurants can also lower the fat content they put in their food and serve healthier stuff.
|
11
|
1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000
|
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
|
Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.
|
46
|
9a5532b3-2019-04-18T16:00:44Z-00002-000
|
Should net neutrality be restored?
|
Skull art challenge Let your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popularLet your voice be HEARD. On Debate.org, you can speak your mind; we encourage it. Debate and discuss topics that are important to you in three different formats: Debates Challenge members to one-on-one debates on specific topics, with several rounds to make your case. The side with the most votes from the community wins the debate. Opinions Pose a question to the community and allow members to pick a side and provide their opinion. Members can chime in and reply to each other's arguments and attempt to sway those on the opposing side. Forums Start an open format discussion with the community on any topic. Subscribe to posts, and keep the conversation going when there is more to say. Polls Create polls to see where our members stand on a variety of issues. Pose questions and let the community decide which answer is the best or most popular
|
5
|
2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00008-000
|
Should social security be privatized?
|
Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: "Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."[1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society. Privatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010.[2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today's Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues.[3] It is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization. [1] Paul Krugman. "Inventing a crisis." New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Wihbey, John, '2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees', Journalist's Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/ [3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
|
8
|
31f2bdb1-2019-04-18T15:32:07Z-00002-000
|
Should abortion be legal?
|
Abortion should be allowed. Claim 1- It is the patient only who takes their own decisions. Fact- Although this is true in some cases, in the case of clinical abortion the ultimate decision is made by the doctor and the doctor only because if the doctor refuses to perform an abortion the woman still remains pregnant but if the doctor does decide to perform an abortion the woman is no longer pregnant because the doctor makes the decisions in cases of clinical abortions. Claim 2- There exists therapies where the rape survivors are made to undergo therapy which ultimately leads to reinstatement of her self confidence and belief. Assumption- Rape survivors that undergo therapy leads to reinstatement of self confidence and belief. Fact/Rebuttal- Although this may be true in most cases not all rape victims that undergo therapy leads to reinstatement of self confidence and belief because therapy is not effective for all individuals. Claim 3/Assumption- My opponent here thinks that I think "Care taken by adoption agency.orphanage is equal to care taken by parents. A child put up for adoption will be adopted in no time." Fact/Rebuttal- I in fact do not think this claim/assumption however I do think that care taken by adoption agency/orphanage can be equal, better, or worse than care taken by parents depending on the situation for example if the parents want/doesn't want the child or if the parents can/cannot financially support the child. I didn't mention earlier that "there are already many children who have filled up orphanages and there aren't enough parents who want to take up children" because I didn't need to mention it to prove my point, my point was to mention that adoption agencies/safe havens are available which they are. I also do not think that all children put up for adoption will be adopted in no time, however I do think that some children will be adopted and some will not and some will be adopted quickly and some will not. Claim 4- a child cannot be well nurtured as well in orphanage as she/he would by parents. Fact/Rebuttal- My opponent here thinks that this claim is true when in fact this claim is only true or untrue in certain situations, for example I reiterate if the parents want/doesn't want the child or if the parents can/cannot financially support the child. Claim 5- http://en.wikipedia.org... Fact/Rebuttal- My opponent uses this link to prove this is what denying abortion can do but although the information on this link may be true it doesn't matter because wikipedia is not a credible source. Claim 6- "During any kind of rape- In such cases it is obvious that the woman would want to terminate the pregnancy. Such cases very much demand the need for abortion,without which both the life of the child and the mother will be spoiled." Fact/Rebuttal- This claim is untrue because it isn't obvious that the woman that was raped would want to terminate the pregnancy because pro life women exist that believe that the fetus shouldn't be killed because of who there father is/was. My opponent also claims that a woman needs an abortion if she's raped when in fact the only circumstance she needs an abortion is if her life is in danger. My opponent also believes that a woman denied an abortion will eventually suffer a spoiled life along with her child but although this may be true in most situations this isn't true in all situations because some women have a change of heart after there child is born, and some children grow up to live happy lives after their birth mothers give them up for adoption http://espn.go.com... Claim 7- "The teen mother is neither physically nor mentally matured enough to nurture a fetus or a child in the future for that matter." Fact/Rebuttal- My opponent claims that teenage mothers aren't mentally ready to raise a child however although this may be true in some situations this isn't true in all situations because some teen aged mothers gain a sense of responsibility after their child is born and raise them just fine although the process may be more difficult due to their age. Claim 8- "Also since they a children themselves,they dont posses enough knowledge on parenting,thus spoiling the life of the mother and the child." Fact/Rebuttal- This isn't true in all circumstances because some mothers teach their daughters motherly like qualities that their daughters pass on to their children and if not there are pregnancy classes available for soon to be mothers.
|
22
|
fb3d70a0-2019-04-18T11:18:26Z-00002-000
|
Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
|
Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head Yes as that is true BUT if they are being pushed onto the ground think about it then you can kick em in the head its 2x the force of a punch so it would still be better to push as you can do a combo and they won't be talking when you kick em
|
24
|
3a4e4366-2019-04-19T12:44:06Z-00004-000
|
Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?
|
Progressive Tax Rate It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. ...
|
20
|
48f32dd1-2019-04-18T16:41:18Z-00001-000
|
Is drinking milk healthy for humans?
|
is weed worst then drinking Drinking too much alcohol can quickly kill a person. The inability to metabolize alcohol as quickly as it is consumed can lead to a buildup of alcohol in the brain that shuts down areas necessary for survival, such as those involved with heartbeat and respiration. [7 Ways Alcohol Affects Your Health] "You can die binge-drinking five minutes after you've been exposed to alcohol. That isn't going to happen with marijuana," said Ruben Baler, a health scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "The impact of marijuana use is much subtler." (Of course, subtle effects don't equate with no danger, as is the case with smoking cigarettes, which is linked with 440,000 deaths per year in the U.S.) Marijuana affects the cardiovascular system, increasing heart rate and blood pressure, but a person can't fatally overdose on pot like they can with alcohol, Baler said
|
11
|
ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00005-000
|
Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
|
Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Performance Enhancing Drugs are defined as substances used to improve performance in a variety of fields. We're talking about steroids, lean mass builders, stimulants, nootropics, painkillers, sedatives, blood boosters, etc- not caffeine and green beans.
|
34
|
47b299d1-2019-04-18T19:09:12Z-00002-000
|
Are social networking sites good for our society?
|
on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses He has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet. " my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t. v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet? for my second contention, my opponent stated "I agree with my opponent in one thing. "they need people to know about what they offer". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls. " first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- now i would like to go onto attacking my opponents case for his first contention he said"While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk. SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. "A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U. S. prosecutors. The U. S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering "Executive Dating" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services. " Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless. SOURCE: . http://www.king5.com...; he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information. they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer. my opponent said in his second contention:"The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people. " he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not. now for my conclusion: in conclusion the resolution states: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses. which means that i have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, my opponent stated the harms of viruses and that it is unpredictable, but i have already attacked those arguments. my opponent has tried to attack my case saying that there are better methods, but i have already defended that, and the other methods aren't even reliant to this debate, the resolution is only talking about the internet and nothing else. my opponent said that there are other ways to get information,but as i have already stated we aren't talking about anything else other than the internet. i have proven the benefits of the internet to businesses, and i have attacked the harms, so, that means that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, so that is why i urge you to please vote for the affermitive in this debate thanks, -bored123456
|
50
|
4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00002-000
|
Should everyone get a universal basic income?
|
Universal Basic Income IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!
|
33
|
d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00001-000
|
Should people become vegetarian?
|
THW become Vegetarians Unless my opponents has even read my comment at the bottom, I have given a reason to post my rebuttals in this round. For there are no round structures, this will go as followed and I have not dropped any arguments. C5)You"ll ease the symptoms of menopause. I see in this scenario a benefit from eating food off of the vegetarian diet. However this shows that you don't need to be vegetarian in order to ease menopause. People can still eat food from the vegetarian diet to help them ease it. If we look at this argument in the beginning, it also talks about how "many foods contain nutrients beneficial to perimenopausal and menopausal women." Note that this does not include men. In this resolution, we talk about America as a whole. However, this argument only applies to woman in general, and we see no benefit to men and kids from this argument. This does not apply to everyone in America. This argument should not be considered in this debate, as my definition specifically states "America". C6)You"ll have more energy This is completely false. They state that "Too much fat in your bloodstream means that arteries won""t open properly and that your muscles won"t get enough oxygen." Let me ask: Would there be any muscle without protein? No. Sure you can still get them from beans because they are healthier, but we as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. Beans may be healthier short term. However we see the longterm issue as a harm to our future generation. Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy, etc. Note that you can only get B12 from meat, asides from dirt. My opponents talk about fat in your blood stream. What is the impact? Does it kill? They have not shown us any significant impacts, as we showed you that without meat, we have much bigger problems in the long term stances. [1] C7 and C11) You"ll help reduce pollution and save the planet Giving up meat will not help the solution: in fact it will make it worse. Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed. Note that it is important to remember that livestock produce large amounts of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.[2] From this, climate changes can worsen as well as the greenhouse gases that will increase pollution. Therefore, being vegetarian will not help reduce pollution or saving the planet, rather making it worse C8) You"ll help reduce famine Reading this over, I see no connection towards the fact that vegetarians actually help these causes. Extreme poverty and world hunger are multi-faceted global problems that are caused by government corruption, a lack of proper food distribution, and other reasons that don"t include eating a meaty diet. C9)You"ll spare animals Let us look at what Pro is suggesting: he/she is saying how we are killing animals and we are killing too much. What if we stopped killing animals? Pro thinks that it is terrific to stop it. However, consider this: if we stopped killing animals, how many animals would we have on earth? Thats right: I'm talking about overpopulation of animals. Note that animal consumption are not from extinct animals: they are animals who are plenty on earth. But that is not the point: In this argument we weight out human harms and animal harms. Are we equal with animals? Not even close. The ability of a human to breathe underwater is not equal to that of a fish. In both situations, I see that on one side we are killing animals. On the other, we see the longterm harms to humans. Thing is, animals rights are not the same as peoples rights and if we do stop killing animals and start to become vegetarian, the results to humans might but much more significant. Once we stop killing animals, we may start facing long term problems of people who suffer from many contortions due to lack of protein, vitamin B12, etc. C10) You'll save money I believe that becoming vegetarian has no money benefits. Even if we are still omnivores, we can still save money by not buying meat, and buying meat on and off. There are many ways to save money from food standards but I do not see that this is the reason why everyone becoming vegetarians are a necessity. Reconstructions: 1. "It is a right of choice, but we aren't saying that you HAVE to be a vegetarian, we are just saying that we prefer being a vegetarian. Alsowhy shoiuld you bother someone who is just eating vegetables? It is not against the law either, so you can just leave hem alone and let the citizens have the right to choose what they cane eat." I am very confused here. They suddenly say that you don't have to be vegetarian, but they prefer being vegetarian. What is the point of this debate then? You are arguing why we need to have This House (America) to be vegetarian as it says on the resolution? They have basically agreed to us that the citizens have the right to choose what they can eat. That is exactly what we are saying in this argument! Their side basically notions that making America become vegetarian means they are forcing their citizens. 2.As I said, if they eat they meat, it is their choice because they wouldn't get in jail. it is their choice and they can follow it or reject. As I said in my first rebuttal, we just prefer, it and it is their right to want to eat meat or just be a vegetarian. Yes, exactly. It is their right. That is why I am on con. In my argument, I am just saying that it is very hard to ensue such a law, and therefore should not be put into change of our status quo. 3. Yes, this is true, but then when we eat beans, it is healthier for us. Meat contains a lot of fat and bad chemicals for you. Beans may be healthier, but in what stance? As I explained in my argument, beans (which is referred as plants because they grow from plants) do not have the same vegetables and PLANTS do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Thus, beans are ineffective to protein and that we must need meat in order to survive. Without the enough amino acid profile, we are looking towards struggles to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffering. Our skin goes unhealthy. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. On a scale, without becoming vegetarian we have much more benefits, as becoming one has more harms. Either way, they have not refuted our Vitamin B12 argument, assuming they have no sayings on this. Lets use some impact calculus: Severity. Side Pro is looking at the fact that it is damaging our environment, health and people. However, these are not as severe as we think that are. Side con wins for this because our impacts are severe, as it hurts the peoples health's especially. Probability: It is not likely to enforce rules to make America vegetarian. It is simply not likely to ensue that everyone does not eat meat Timeframe: They only talk about short term impacts but our impacts last longterm. They have not reconstructed their case, nor refuted properly, whereas I have reconstructed, refuted and kept on defending my side properly. In a way, it seems like they have conceded. Good debate with side pro Vote Con! 1) http://www.mnn.com... 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
|
28
|
ddcd2e78-2019-04-18T12:57:31Z-00001-000
|
Should prostitution be legal?
|
Legalize prostitution in the USA. I don't agree that we should not legalize prostitution in the United States. 1. Legalizing prostitution will increase sex trafficking and promote inequality. 2. Legalizing prostitution does not protect the people that are in the sex industry.
|
2
|
2a5bda38-2019-04-18T20:01:40Z-00002-000
|
Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?
|
Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence. ~~~ Highlighting Fallacies Within the Claim ~~~ The argument you're defending is: "Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence." There are some flaws with this: Either-or Fallacy It commits an either-or fallacy. It makes the assumption that there are only two types of education to be taught: safe sex and abstinence. In fact you are ignoring abstinence plus/comprehensive sex education/safer sex education. Your "safe sex" is none of the above and I know of no supporting evidence of any program that only teaches "safe sex." Safe Sex Does Not Exist Technically there is no such thing as "safe sex." The term researchers use is "safer sex," which you are not using. Condoms are slightly fallible against protecting against HIV for instance (1). There are also issues with STIs such as herpes and HPV which transmit through skin contact not covered by a barrier method. No one wants a cold sore on their genitals and HPV strains 16 and 18 are associated with cervical cancer (2). ~~~ References ~~~ 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...
|
16
|
139055af-2019-04-18T11:17:35Z-00001-000
|
Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?
|
Drugs should be illegal All illegal drugs are addictive and too many kids are using illegal drugs. It is a huge problem in America. In all the countries where drugs have been legalized, Drug use has gone up. Organized crime has gone up in these countries too, As have the street dealers. Legalizing drugs in America will not stop street gangs or the Mexican drug cartels. People's social lives deteriorate. They feel alienated from the rest of society. They are shunned by their friends or family. They can become dependent. May resort to crime in order to get their hands on the drug. Get in trouble with the law, And end up in jail. Then this becomes a permanent thing on their job application. They won't be hired. They will live a terrible life, And they will suffer.
|
24
|
72004c03-2019-04-18T15:20:56Z-00000-000
|
Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?
|
Flat Tax She has brought up some interesting arguments that I have thought about. 1. Pro repeats that progressive tax rates punish people for success, but paying higher tax rates is not a punishment. They are a responsibility that goes with the territory of success. A punishment is a penalty but a responsibility is an expectation. If I have to pass my driver's test to get a license that is not a penalty, that is part of the process if I want the privilege of driving. If you earn more money, it is not a penalty to pay taxes but part of the process of the American tax system. Pro says that a flat tax embraces fairness, but I've explained why it's fair to expect those with more money to pay higher tax rates. They can afford it comfortably whereas other people struggle to get by, which is not good for them or the overall economy. No man is an island. We are all in this market and community (country) together as Americans, that is why we have the social contract that justifies taxes in the first place [A]. 2. Dropped 3. A progressive tax rate can be very simple. For instance it can be divided into 5 tiers or even 4, and the percentage you pay is according to which of the 4 or 5 brackets you fall into. That is not difficult to understand. Fraud occurs not because the tax process is hard to understand, but because people lie and hide assets, which would still happen even with a flat tax. 4. Other laws holding politicians accountable should be put in place separate from the issue of progressive vs. flat taxes. For instance if you pass laws that show complete transparency in corporate donors, or eliminate the revolving door in politics, then cronyism would be minimized among politicians without having to change the structure of the tax code. 5. Dropped 6. Dropped 7. Dropped 8. I could drop those other points, because they are repeated contentions. Many of them have to do with social responsibility which I have repeatedly addressed also. People who struggle financially are severely burdened emotionally and with debt. This is bad for their well being [B] and affects their ability to work and be productive in society. We are not an island, so other people's influence affects us and we all benefit from as little people struggling as possible. We should minimize suffering and so many people suffer from financial stress. Meanwhile the richest people do not suffer at all or barely even notice when they are taxed at rates which seem high to the rest of us, but barely put a dent in their finances. At the end of the day money is just paper and people's lives are what matter. The rich people will still find a way to flourish and stay rich, while the poor and middle class need a little help from the government to keep the rich in check, the same way the rich rely on the government to help keep the poor people poor. 9. A flat tax would free up immediate cash, but the wealthy will just invest that cash in business overseas where there is cheaper labor. That will not do much for the rest of middle or impoverished America. 10. That's the reason we can assume that people in America would not be better off with a flat tax. 11. Most people don't realize they are being screwed by the wealthy because they live under the faulty assumption that they can be one of them someday if they "work hard enough. " People are also brainwashed to believe their taxes go to fund lazy poor people which is why they think they want a flat tax. They don't realize how much their taxes will actually increase if the super rich pay a lower rate. 12. Dropped 13. Again it goes back to the argument of social responsibility. Pro says inequality is an inherent part of nature. That is true but so are natural disasters and we account for them and try to protect against them and the danger they can create. Drastic wealth inequality is not good for this country [C] so we should help keep it to a minimum with a progressive tax rate. CONCLUSION We have a social responsibility to take care of the people around us who are a part of our lives and whose lives in turn affect ours and the progress we can make as individuals and as a country. It will alleviate the most stress on more people to utilize a progressive tax rate over a flat tax rate. [A] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [B] . http://www.debt.org... [C] . http://thepolitic.org...
|
48
|
ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00005-000
|
Should the voting age be lowered?
|
lower the voting age to 16 Voting at a lower age would increase participation
|
17
|
b9e1a102-2019-04-18T17:32:22Z-00000-000
|
Should recreational marijuana be legal?
|
Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal I would like to split this last argument into two parts. The first will be factual reasons for why pot shouldn't be legalized and the second will be my personal opinion as to why marijuana shouldn't be legal. According to the CNBC article : . http://www.cnbc.com... "Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in the U. S. " So clearly the gateway theory does apply. .. And to refute your point of marijuana use decreasing if we legalize pot "If the U. S. were to legalize marijuana, the number of marijuana users would increase. Today there are 15.2 million current marijuana users in comparison to 129 million alcohol users and 70.9 million tobacco users. Though the number of marijuana users might not quickly climb to the current numbers for alcohol and tobacco, if marijuana was legalized, the increase in users would be both large and rapid with subsequent increases in addiction. " Even though marijuana isn't as addictive as crack/cocaine/heroine it still creates a sense of dependence. Also, let's not forget about car accidents: "Drug-impaired driving will also increase if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is already a significant causal factor in highway crashes, injuries and deaths. In a recent national roadside survey of weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL (2.2 percent). " Here is my moral reasoning for why we should not legalize pot: *please note: I feel the same way about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs however this debate is solely focusing on marijuana Marijuana creates a distraction from the problems that people have in their lives. It's another escape route that people can use in order to avoid fixing their problems. I understand experimentation. Everyone's curious. But, if your were really happy with your life you wouldn't need to turn to marijuana. If we legalize marijuana which is already abused, we as a society are saying that this is an OK escape. Let's look at alcohol. Most people start drinking for fun but others do it because they don't like something about themselves/what's going on in their lives. Most people become addicted because they don't want to face their problems. I've never tried weed and don't plan on it. I've never had alcohol before. I'm happy with who I am and we should encourage others to be happy with themselves and to not turn to addictive substances.
|
38
|
174daad7-2019-04-18T18:53:23Z-00005-000
|
Should marijuana be a medical option?
|
Medical Marijuana I would ask to change thie debate to is marijuana healthy? I ask you to tweak the topic slightly because I thik right now it is too lopsided
|
18
|
c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00004-000
|
Should churches remain tax-exempt?
|
Abortion Should Remain Legal "The prevention of harm to the woman is not the only reason for abortion, an abortion could be used for other reasons such as birth control, the prevention of a fetus with deformities from having a life of suffering, among other reasons." Yes, but the prevention of harm to the woman is the only valid legal reason, and that reason was essentially decided along ethical lines – it's also the only valid ethical reason. A fetus with deformities? Which deformities? What's a "life of suffering?" People with disabilities aren't all wallowing in misery. "An abortion could be necessary when it is too late to use other methods of birth control. And it doesn't make sense to say that women will always get an abortion instead of using other methods of birth control earlier. A woman will realize that it is easier to use protection opposed to not and always having to get abortions." That is absolutely true. I'm saying that when an abortion is no longer necessary, because of alternative treatments, there is no longer a compelling interest for abortions to be legal. "It is not possible to determine? Do you consider sperm to be human? Many people let millions of sperm die every day, but that will never be illegal. Some people think that a fetus becomes human when it can survive outside of the body. Some people think it becomes a human after it leaves the body. There can be many points when a fetus could be considered human, but the moment of conception is certainly not one of them. The moment of conception merely creates a cluster of cells that is incapable of thinking, showing emotion, of being conscious. A woman can choose where to draw the line of when the fetus is human, making abortion illegal is not the solution." You ignore my point, and then drew completely different conclusions from your interpretation of it. The point is that human life exists along a continuum, and along that continuum there exist stages where, as you said "a fetus could be considered human." I am not arguing that conception is such a stage, but I don't need to because the morning after pill fixes that problem without abortion. Abortion is a procedure that is not performed on unfertilized eggs and sperm, or even on early stage zygotes, but on embryos and fetuses. The discussion of the validity of human life is only valid within this range. "That may be true, but that 'someday' hasn't happened yet. For now, abortion must remain legal." This is not what you were arguing. You were arguing that "abortion should remain legal" because "women should have the right to their own bodies, not the government. A fetus is not a human, it is a potential human. Because of that, a potential human does not have any rights." A fetus may, in fact, have rights, because it may be human, and not merely a potential human. Just as you said, definitions differ. By asserting that the fetus' rights are never taken into account, you are making an argument that abortions are justified no matter what happens. After all, if one being has rights and the other does not, then there is nothing stopping the one being from doing as it wishes to the other. I am arguing that abortion rights should not remain legal indefinitely, as you have proposed, because there may (and likely will) come a time when abortion is no longer a valid ethical risk to take. Other Reasons for Abortion "A woman may want to get an abortion because she can't pay for the child. Would you want to be paying with your tax dollars for those unplanned children?" Sure. I like people more than things. But seriously, she could have the child adopted, or be required to seek potential adoptive parents before birth. There are certainly enough people who would like to have children. "Also, would you really deny a rape victim from having an abortion?" Yes. Potential should not be thwarted because of origin. "Would you expect her to care for a baby she didn't ask for, have to endure 9 months of pregnancy and labor, and have that baby as a reminder of the incident and that the child carries the genes of a rapist?" 1.I am positing that a procedure may exist to remove the child safely from the mother and incubate it so that she can get on with her life. When this happens, labor pains can no longer be taken into account as an ethical concern. 2.The "genes of a rapist" argument is eugenics speak. Many children of rape are adopted and go on to live 'normal' lives. Rape is borne out of the effects of certain experiences on those organisms that develop as a consequence of their genes. You can not inherent actions, just (possibly) a likelihood to commit certain actions given similar circumstances. http://forums.adoption.com... " Also, it shouldn't only be for a rape victim, there are other woman who don't want to carry that fetus around for 9 months that is an accident that a lot of parents would love less than a planned child." This is an argument for better birth control, not abortion. " And think of all the unplanned children adding to the population that is already starting to overcrowd, and how a kid would react if they found out that they were an accident." This is also an argument for better birth control, not abortion.
|
43
|
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000
|
Should bottled water be banned?
|
Water quality Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because "we don't need it" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.
|
23
|
2d207525-2019-04-18T19:36:31Z-00000-000
|
Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
|
Euthanasia Should Be Legal. 1. Third Party Influence: My opponent agrees that no law can be crafted on such a delicate issue which will rule out corruption in the Ethanasia system. Also, my opponent does not present a way for a system to have transparency built in to allow reviews of the decision's toward euthanasia. It is very important to understand that Third Party Influence has the potential to corrupt the Euthanasia system. No law can be crafted which can ensure this does not occur or to allow prosecution in the future since transparency does not exist. My opponent argues that he believes a case in which a Third Party (Family, freinds, or outsiders) has an agenda and pressures the patient into assisted suicide is "rare". This is true but that is because only 6 places in the ENTIRE world allow euthanasia. Now extending the legality of euthanasia to all of the USA, the third largest country in the world, you can imagine that cases of corrupt behavior by a third party will rise as the number of euthanasia procedures rise. Since my opponent agrees that corrupt behavior does exists he must understand that by extending the power of euthanasia to 350,000,000 people corrupt behavior will increase. My opponent's argument: "Mind you, for most if not all voluntary euthanasia procedures, this patient is under unbearable pain and/or is terminally ill. So it's not like family members (really corrupt ones at that) can try to find any excuse to persuade their relative to pull the plug; the patient would have to meet the requirements medically speaking. This requirement by itself limits the possibility of family members trying to profit from someone's death." As the law is written in Oregon, "Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life." (Wikipedia.com) So my opponents argument that the patient is on a deathbed in excruciating pain pleading for their life to end is only half the story. Patients can ask for euthanasia as soon as they are diagnosed with a terminal illness and they have less than six months to live. My opponent assumes that they will wait until they are in severe pain and almost dead to ask for euthanasia when in fact they can choose euthanasia before disease has the chance to consume their body. Hence the name of the law in Oregon - "Death with dignity act". Meaning a person can avoid putting his or her family through the pain of seeing them in severe pain and drifting in and out of consciousness and ending their life weeks or months before this occurs. So their family is not exposed to such trauma. This being true makes his argument that corruption by a third party is limited since the patient must meet medical standards and be in severe pain false. Since the only requirement the current law in Oregon requires the patient to have a terminal illness that will kill them within 6 months. This leaves a large enough window for Third Party corruption. This being true euthanasia should not be legalised. 2. Corruption in the Euthanasia System Opponents Agrument: "A doctor can't get paid by some shady character and kill the patient; there has to be written consensus on the patient's part." The scenario i presented in round is this: Under the model that doctors must not be paid for euthanasia but offer them for free to rule out corrupt behavior in the euthanasia system would not work. Doctors would have more incentive to authorize and conduct fraudulent euthanasia procedures since they would be paid "under the table" for them. My opponent argument fails for 2 reasons. First, my opponent again insists that "written consent on the patients part" rules out corrupt behavior. As i have clearly explained, patient consent does not rule out corruption. If a patient is pressured by a third into assisted suicide his "written consent" is merely a lie for he or she truly does not want to undergo euthanasia. Second, my opponent's depiction of "some shady character" paying a doctor to "kill the patient" is exaggerated. Under the model of free euthanasia procedures, a Third Party (family or friends of the patient, hardly "shady") can approach the doctor and pay him money to fraudulently authorize and conduct an euthanasia procedure. If the doctor is not getting paid to conduct and authorize legal euthanasia he has more incentive to conduct and authorize a fraudulent euthanasia for money. The argument that offering euthanasia for free will uproot corruption again is false. Not only will doctors be more susceptible to corruption but consumers of euthanasia procedures will increase. So more people will choose euthanasia as a viable option since it is free, there is no barrier to curb the use of euthanasia, instead this will increase the number of procedures performed. As i stated earlier, with the increase of euthanasia procedures, the probability that corrupt behavior will occur also increases. Conclusion: Euthanasia is a very tough issue. It offers families in dire situations to help end the suffering of loved ones. Many can agree that it seems humane and right to allow Euthanasia to speed up the process of death in such a scenario. However as the law in Oregon shows, a person can choose Euthanasia month or weeks before they are reduced to such a state. The dangers that are clearly eminent by corruption can not be purged from any Euthanasia system. Legislatures can not craft a law perfect enough to rule out corruption and greed. Nor, can they craft a law allowing transparency into the decision of the terminally ill for later review into corrupt or fraudulent behavior since the terminally ill has deceased. Allowing 350,000,000 the right to assisted suicide is dangerous since we can not control corrupt behavior. It should noted Patients are allowed to refuse medical treatment even if it speeds up the process of their death. In this situation the patient in in complete control, no second party is conducting procedures that actively kill the patient. Also people should understand that Euthanasia is not a perfect science: "In an earlier 2000 study of 649 patients undergoing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, 14% of patients undergoing euthanasia had complications such as waking from the coma, spasms or vomiting.[2] Thirty-two percent of patients undergoing physician-assisted suicide had complications which were troublesome enough in 18% to require their doctors to switch to active euthanasia. In this study physicians were absent in 28% of cases of euthanasia and 48% of cases of physician-assisted suicide." http://en.wikipedia.org... These stats are from the Netherlands where Euthanasia is legal. The Netherlands only represents %5 of the USA population. For these reasons Euthanasia should not be legalized.
|
30
|
9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00001-000
|
Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
|
Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources: http://gunvictimsaction.org... http://www.justfacts.com...
|
44
|
eb5233c9-2019-04-18T15:04:28Z-00003-000
|
Should election day be a national holiday?
|
should September 2 be a holiday well there's another point you have. my point is this was the last world war out of two. its when well the world as at war. the odds of that happening well i don't know because of all the stupid politics. but civilians deaths were so bad. people were caught in a war they didn't want be in. 2 the civilians in japan had the atomic bomb dropped on them. two cities with population of about 300,000 each according to my history book. so has their ever been another war were a atomic bomb or nuke dropped? no their has not. because the cold war was based on it it but the we never nuked each because well plenty of reasons. so those civilians need to be recognized. well and the Isis thing. i was saying killing Christians like Nazis killed Jews and i thought you bring it up
|
33
|
f67363ae-2019-04-18T17:04:18Z-00004-000
|
Should people become vegetarian?
|
People should eat much less meat Thanks for accepting.l. Healthl.A. Kidney stonesA vegetarian diet reduces the percent chance of developing kidney stones. Kidney stones are most frequently caused by too much calcium oxalate or uric acid in the urine. Animal protein (including meats, shellfish, eggs etc.) have large amounts of oxalates and uric acid in it, thus increasing the risk of kidney stones. [1] Americans consume a lot of meat, in burgers or hot dogs, or steaks, but 1 in 11 Americans suffer from kidney stones, suggesting that this high-meat diet may be catching up with Americans. [2]l.B. Iron sourcesRed meat is rich in iron, but studies show that too much heme iron (the iron found in red meat) may not be beneficial to humans. Studies have linked this heme iron to an increased risk of getting rectal or colon cancer. [3] Non-heme iron is found in foods like leafy greens and beans.l.C. Heart diseaseAn Oxford study shows that vegetarians are 32% less likely to get heart disease than meat eaters. [4] l.D. ConclusionThere are many conditions and disease that can be contracted by eating meat. None of them are fun at all, and if people want to have a higher chance of living longer, healthier, and therefore happier lives, they should reduce the amount of animal protein they eat. ll. Ethicsll.A. Are their lives wasted?Animals killed for meat are raised in slaughterhouses, many never seeing the light of day, or feeling grass beneath their feet. Humans can function without eating meat, so are we taking their lives for a whim? Animals can experience stress, pain, and fear. 10,153 million animals are killed for their meat every year. [5] That is a ridiculous amount of animals to die for humans' dietary preferences. ll.B Conditions of slaughterhousesAnimals killed for meat are kept in cramped, dirty, and unnatural conditions, and are sometimes even fed the ground up remains of animals of their own species. The meat industry is out to make a profit, and to maximize the number of animals they can keep, animals can be kept in spaces so small they can't even turn around. They aren't exercised so they fatten quickly, and are pumped full of drugs and antibiotics to keep them alive in conditions that would've killed them. [6]ll.C. Most slaughterhouses don't kill animals humanelyThe Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) is an attempt to make slaughter more humane by, for example, mandating that livestock be stunned unconcious before slaughter to minimize the animal's suffering. But the HMSA doesn't include chickens and turkeys in its legislation, and some slaughterhouses merely ignore the HMSA, as it is not economically profitable and is not as strictly enforced as it could be. [7]ll.D ConclusionMeat is not humane!! Every consumer counts, and it only takes one person to make a difference!! A vegetarian saves over 406 animals a year, that's more than 1 a day!! [8] Many people do not realize the agony that went into their enjoyable lunch. There is no excuse for excessive meat consumption, unless a doctor specifically prescribed it, which I doubt they would. Round ConclusionMeat is bad for the health and the soul. I will make more points next round to make this argument less long, and more 'readable'. Sources[1] http://www.webmd.com...;[2] http://www.dailynews.com...;[3] http://vegetarian.procon.org...;[4] http://ebn.benefitnews.com...;[5] http://farmusa.org...;[6] http://www.peta.org...;[7] http://www.gpo.gov...;[8] http://www.countinganimals.com...;
|
46
|
91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00004-000
|
Should net neutrality be restored?
|
The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...
|
18
|
b1c2d7b2-2019-04-18T19:12:07Z-00003-000
|
Should churches remain tax-exempt?
|
The churches should expand their gambling operations The churches are always moaning about falling church attendances and dwindling revenues and it is certainly true that churches have been haemorrhaging customers for years (1). Furthermore, with the demographics of the current congregations being so overwhelmingly dominated by the elderly, this situation is predicted to deteriorate even further as and when all the church-going coffin-dodgers succumb to the inevitable (2). In order to reverse this decline and also to secure a prosperous financial future it is clear that the churches must broaden their appeal. Of course, the core business of the churches should remain peddling religion to the spiritually credulous and the emotionally vulnerable but hymns, prayers and sermons don't really appeal to hedonists, thrill-seekers or, indeed, pretty much anyone with a pulse! Therefore, the churches will need to provide something a bit more stimulating in order to attract a younger, more vibrant clientele. But the question is "what?" Well, obviously it needs to be a money-spinner and also something that the churches would feel comfortable with. At the moment, churches raise some of their funds through gambling, usually in the form of raffles or bingo sessions, but these are quite dull, don't raise that much cash and don't attract new punters through the door. Church-based casinos, on the other hand, would be very exciting and glamorous and would raise fortunes for the churches' coffers. You can imagine that an evening playing religious roulette, biblical blackjack and spiritual slot machines with Christian croupiers as hosts, perhaps followed by a meal of loaves and fishes washed down with communal wine served by worshipping waitresses in sexy cassocks would be a lot more appealing than the bible studies, bell-ringing and brass rubbing that churches currently use to attract younger people. Furthermore, since people are going to gamble anyway, diverting punters away from traditional and online casinos and into the churches will mean that their money will be used to maintain historic buildings and help the poor rather than line the pockets of shady businessmen. Also, the church-based casinos will give the vicars and priests an opportunity to mingle with the gamblers and try to convert them to Christianity, or at least flog them Bibles or rosary beads or fake holy relics. In conclusion, the churches must move with the times and accept that people today have lower boredom thresholds than previous generations and by expanding their gambling operations to encompass church-based casinos they would attract more punters through the door and create a valuable new source of income into the bargain. Thank you. (1) http://www.churchsociety.org... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com...
|
31
|
4bdb8ef9-2019-04-18T17:43:07Z-00003-000
|
Is obesity a disease?
|
Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse I stand here today to support the following resolution: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse. This will mostly be a logic based debate, but if necesarry, sources may be provided. Terms: Child obesity- The condition of being considered medically obese as a person under the age of 18, or in a person not legally emancipated from their parents. (because you can free yourself of your parents at 17 or younger in some states) Pre-existing medical condition- a genetic condition that effects the bodies ability to keep itself at a healthy BMI when properly cared for. Child abuse- a legal term relating to the mistreatment of minors in an individuals custody. Includes neglect, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Currently, the state considers it the duty of the parent to keep their child in good mental condition, to keep them properly fed, clothed, and bathed, and to more or less ensure their happiness. The parent should keep the child in good health, free from maladies and health risks. These are legal obligations that must be kept or the child will be at risk of being put into an alternate home on grounds of child abuse. (source: Parental rights and responsibilities : analysing social policy and lived experiences by Harriet Churchill) The most important part of this relating to this debate is the legal duty of the parent to keep the child in good health. One may think that an obese child is not in serious danger, but this is very clearly incorrect. My stance is based on the following points. Point A: Health risks associated with obesity. It is common knowledge that being severely overweight is linked to very serious health issues. These include, but are certainly not limitted to, high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting, clogged arteries (and subsequently, heart attacks), and in some extreme cases, immobility. Most of these conditions can lead to hospitilization and and of course death. For a parent to allow their child to be obese by not giving them a proper meal regimen and allowing them to neglect exercise is putting that child in the firing line of all these dangerous health issues. Point B: Malnutrition. There is no argument over whether a parent that starves their child is abusing them. A child given insufficient food will become malnourished and this produces completely separate health problems from the ones listed above. Over feeding, or feeding the child an unbalanced diet with an excess of fatties foods shouldn't be any different. In both cases the body is not receiving all the vitamins and minerals it needs to grow healthy and strong. When a body is deprived of minerals, bones become more breakable, scurvy is a possibility...this list goes on. So, seeing as allowing a child to remain obese causes so many health problems, and thus is dangerous, it should indeed be considered a form of child abuse. Further discussion upon Con's response.
|
42
|
31f2bdb1-2019-04-18T15:32:07Z-00002-000
|
Should fighting be allowed in hockey?
|
Abortion should be allowed. Claim 1- It is the patient only who takes their own decisions. Fact- Although this is true in some cases, in the case of clinical abortion the ultimate decision is made by the doctor and the doctor only because if the doctor refuses to perform an abortion the woman still remains pregnant but if the doctor does decide to perform an abortion the woman is no longer pregnant because the doctor makes the decisions in cases of clinical abortions. Claim 2- There exists therapies where the rape survivors are made to undergo therapy which ultimately leads to reinstatement of her self confidence and belief. Assumption- Rape survivors that undergo therapy leads to reinstatement of self confidence and belief. Fact/Rebuttal- Although this may be true in most cases not all rape victims that undergo therapy leads to reinstatement of self confidence and belief because therapy is not effective for all individuals. Claim 3/Assumption- My opponent here thinks that I think "Care taken by adoption agency.orphanage is equal to care taken by parents. A child put up for adoption will be adopted in no time." Fact/Rebuttal- I in fact do not think this claim/assumption however I do think that care taken by adoption agency/orphanage can be equal, better, or worse than care taken by parents depending on the situation for example if the parents want/doesn't want the child or if the parents can/cannot financially support the child. I didn't mention earlier that "there are already many children who have filled up orphanages and there aren't enough parents who want to take up children" because I didn't need to mention it to prove my point, my point was to mention that adoption agencies/safe havens are available which they are. I also do not think that all children put up for adoption will be adopted in no time, however I do think that some children will be adopted and some will not and some will be adopted quickly and some will not. Claim 4- a child cannot be well nurtured as well in orphanage as she/he would by parents. Fact/Rebuttal- My opponent here thinks that this claim is true when in fact this claim is only true or untrue in certain situations, for example I reiterate if the parents want/doesn't want the child or if the parents can/cannot financially support the child. Claim 5- http://en.wikipedia.org... Fact/Rebuttal- My opponent uses this link to prove this is what denying abortion can do but although the information on this link may be true it doesn't matter because wikipedia is not a credible source. Claim 6- "During any kind of rape- In such cases it is obvious that the woman would want to terminate the pregnancy. Such cases very much demand the need for abortion,without which both the life of the child and the mother will be spoiled." Fact/Rebuttal- This claim is untrue because it isn't obvious that the woman that was raped would want to terminate the pregnancy because pro life women exist that believe that the fetus shouldn't be killed because of who there father is/was. My opponent also claims that a woman needs an abortion if she's raped when in fact the only circumstance she needs an abortion is if her life is in danger. My opponent also believes that a woman denied an abortion will eventually suffer a spoiled life along with her child but although this may be true in most situations this isn't true in all situations because some women have a change of heart after there child is born, and some children grow up to live happy lives after their birth mothers give them up for adoption http://espn.go.com... Claim 7- "The teen mother is neither physically nor mentally matured enough to nurture a fetus or a child in the future for that matter." Fact/Rebuttal- My opponent claims that teenage mothers aren't mentally ready to raise a child however although this may be true in some situations this isn't true in all situations because some teen aged mothers gain a sense of responsibility after their child is born and raise them just fine although the process may be more difficult due to their age. Claim 8- "Also since they a children themselves,they dont posses enough knowledge on parenting,thus spoiling the life of the mother and the child." Fact/Rebuttal- This isn't true in all circumstances because some mothers teach their daughters motherly like qualities that their daughters pass on to their children and if not there are pregnancy classes available for soon to be mothers.
|
34
|
5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00007-000
|
Are social networking sites good for our society?
|
Social Networking Sites are Harmful The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. "The most effective networking is face to face," says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. "There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online." Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )
|
2
|
3a1faa39-2019-04-18T12:17:34Z-00001-000
|
Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?
|
are vaccines safe vaccines are safe they protect the body against diseases. they work by giving the body a mild or similar case of the disease.
|
40
|
ed87672d-2019-04-18T15:14:18Z-00002-000
|
Should the death penalty be allowed?
|
Death Penalty In response to Pro"s argument, I will present two main points that will potentially negate the idea that the death penalty should be legal. First I will talk of the death penalty"s effectiveness and lastly my main opinion on why we should get rid of the death penalty all together. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, I will address the common argument for supporting the death penalty. Some people tend to believe that the death penalty is effective in lowering crime rates, but I will prove why this is wrong. Although crime rates overall have been decreasing, it has no concrete relation to the use of the death penalty. According to FBI statistics from 2012 to 2013, the number of violent crimes had decreased by 4.4 percent (1). While this is an amazing thing for our country, the crime rates have decreased everywhere, even in states without the death penalty. Graph-> http://s3.amazonaws.com... (I am not sure if this link will show up since my others didn't, but it just shows the 15 states without the death penalty, and the 35 states with it). This map of the U.S. shows us that a large majority of the states have legalized the death penalty. So, according to many peoples" arguments, these states should have lower crime rates, right? This isn't so. According to an article in the Huffington Post based on statistics gathered from the FBI, 8 of the top 10 most dangerous states in the U.S. are all states that have legalized the death penalty, with the highest being Tennessee at an average of 643.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people (2). Also, according to another article, the top 2 safest states in the U.S. are both states without the death penalty (3). Now let"s look take a look at crime rates in other countries without the death penalty as well, more specifically, our neighbor Canada. When looking at the comparison of crime rates between Canada and the U.S., a startling thing jumps out at you, Canada"s crime rates are significantly lower. The United States" crime levels are 43% higher, the murder rate is 23 times more, the rape rate is 16 times more, and so on (4). While this doesn't truly prove that having no death penalty is more effective, it does negate the need for a death penalty at all. So, if the death penalty isn't helping lower crime rates (by scaring people into refraining from violent acts), then why do most people believe it should be allowed? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question above takes me into my next point. The reason some people believe it should be allowed is for the simple fact that they hate the criminal for what he/she has done. And they wish to obtain revenge. Although this person has killed or raped/molested another human, that should not condone giving them a death sentence. Killing this human being will not bring back the person that they killed. It will not right their wrong. How, in any way, are we teaching people that murder is wrong if we turn around and do it ourselves? More often than not, life in prison is even worse for a criminal. If we restrict what criminals of capital crimes can do within a prison to working, sleeping, and eating (no Internet for criminals of capital crimes like many prisons have today), we may be able to work on crime like murder without losing our humanity. Also, like my opponent stated before, there are some cases where a criminal was actually found to be innocent after being put to death. Faults like these can be avoided if the death penalty wasn't legal. Likewise, if we get rid of the death penalty, our country will save money as well because cases involving the death penalty are often around twice as much money than cases involving a life-sentence in prison (5). The country must take action with supporting humane ways to deal with criminals of capital offense and must implement counseling for all criminals. We should also encourage classes in high schools across the country to bring awareness to crimes such as murder and rape, and why these crimes should not be committed. We need to bring awareness to these actions, especially since they are seen as socially unacceptable to talk about, so most kids will grow up to be mindful of how serious these crimes are. Instead of going blind to our wrath and using the death penalty, our country must work together to lower crime rates (granted there will ALWAYS be crime) without being hypocrites and condoning the killing of criminals of capital punishment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, the death penalty should be illegal because it doesn't decrease the rate of crimes, and killing criminals out of anger (and a want for revenge) will not support the idea that murdering is wrong, due to the hypocrisy behind the idea. Back to you, Pro :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)"Decrease in Violent Crimes and Property Crimes." FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. http://www.fbi.gov... (2)McCormack, Simon. "America's Most Dangerous States, Based On Law Street's Analysis Of FBI Crime Statistics." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Aug. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (3)Frohlich, Thomas C., and Alexander Kent. "The Safest States In America." 24/7 Wall Street. 2 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. http://247wallst.com... (4)"Canada vs United States Crime Stats Compared." NationMaster.com. Nation Master. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. http://www.nationmaster.com... (5)"Costs of the Death Penalty." Costs of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center, 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... *Hopefully my links will show up this time, but I cited my sources just in case
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.