Datasets:

notaphoenix

/

debateorg_w_effect_for_liberal

like 0

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a constructive conversation (and all that other give-me-the-conduct-vote mush) I will now present my rebuttals to cons argument before proceeding to build a case in favor of the proposition. My opponent argues that affirmative action is used to assist truly disadvantaged persons regardless of race and therefore does not meet the definition of racism presented in round one. To show this my opponent has posted a link to a web page where a man, is asked for and gives his opinion on who benefits from affirmative action. I will be referring to this link from my opponent as 'the article' for ease of reference. Voters can follow the link themselves, but I will summarize several key points presented there and offer my rebuttal. This is necessary because of the fact that my opponent has only used the article as a general support of his claim rather than citing a specific statement or statistic from the article . Also, because my opponent has only cited this site to support the claim that, in my opponents words, "All ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other [ethnicities] benefit from affirmative action" I will only refer to parts of that web page that deal with that assertion. With this in mind, let me begin by introducing the articles claim, how it pertains to my opponents argument, and my rebbutal of the claim made by the article First the article presents a scenario in which a black woman with more education and (presumably) more qualifications is given a lower pay grade and title than her white coworkers. The question is then asked: Who are the recipients of affirmative action? According to the article, "Practically every white person in this country disproportionately benefits from affirmative action." The reasoning behind this statement is made clear later in the article, where it states the following: "Affirmative-action programs are necessary to provide access for people who were prevented access by reasons of racism. They are a benefit to our entire society because increasing wealth for underrepresented groups increases wealth for all. Here"s a quick fact: Black households have one-tenth the wealth of white households in this country. If our society caught black households up it would be the equivalent of injecting the entire GDP of Japan into our economy. Who would benefit the most from this? White people. A rising tide lifts all boats, and there are more "white boats" in the bay."[1] Essentially this statement can be summed up by saying that if affirmative action programs are put into place they would result in an increase in the average wealth of 'underrepresented groups' and therefore an increase in the average wealth of the nation, which is good for minorities and non-minorities alike in the big picture . At face value this seems plausible, and it is this face-value plausibility that the article and my opponent rely on as the article provides no real world examples of such a big picture benefit actually taking place. In fact this statement simply does not hold up to critical examination. The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is . In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid. Besides the claims made in the article my opponent has not yet presented any reason to believe that affirmative action really is about helping genuinely disadvantaged people rather than just trying to 'even out' the opportunities of minorities compared to non-minorities by taking away opportunities away from non-minority groups. I spent more time in rebuttal than I had intended, so I will make my positive case in favor of the proposition short and to the point: Basically, as I touched on before, affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons. Affirmative action is about 'evening out' the opportunities of minorities compared to non-minorities (blacks and whites in the example provided by cons article) by taking away opportunities from non-minority groups. It does this by defining a certain group as in need of assistance because of their race and using resources that otherwise would have been avaliable to individuals who do not qualify as the governments definition of who is 'in need of assistance'. When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious. I will attempt to build a stronger positive case in the final round, but unfortunately that is all I have time to say for now. I hope that I have at least given my opponent enough to work with in defending the assertions they have made in round one. [1] Quote from the article linked by con in round one.

Discipulus_Didicit

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a constructive conversation (and all that other give-me-the-conduct-vote mush) I will now present my rebuttals to cons argument before proceeding to build a case in favor of the proposition. My opponent argues that affirmative action is used to assist truly disadvantaged persons regardless of race and therefore does not meet the definition of racism presented in round one. To show this my opponent has posted a link to a web page where a man, is asked for and gives his opinion on who benefits from affirmative action. I will be referring to this link from my opponent as 'the article' for ease of reference. Voters can follow the link themselves, but I will summarize several key points presented there and offer my rebuttal. This is necessary because of the fact that my opponent has only used the article as a general support of his claim rather than citing a specific statement or statistic from the article . Also, because my opponent has only cited this site to support the claim that, in my opponents words, "All ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other [ethnicities] benefit from affirmative action" I will only refer to parts of that web page that deal with that assertion. With this in mind, let me begin by introducing the articles claim, how it pertains to my opponents argument, and my rebbutal of the claim made by the article First the article presents a scenario in which a black woman with more education and (presumably) more qualifications is given a lower pay grade and title than her white coworkers. The question is then asked: Who are the recipients of affirmative action? According to the article, "Practically every white person in this country disproportionately benefits from affirmative action." The reasoning behind this statement is made clear later in the article, where it states the following: "Affirmative-action programs are necessary to provide access for people who were prevented access by reasons of racism. They are a benefit to our entire society because increasing wealth for underrepresented groups increases wealth for all. Here"s a quick fact: Black households have one-tenth the wealth of white households in this country. If our society caught black households up it would be the equivalent of injecting the entire GDP of Japan into our economy. Who would benefit the most from this? White people. A rising tide lifts all boats, and there are more "white boats" in the bay."[1] Essentially this statement can be summed up by saying that if affirmative action programs are put into place they would result in an increase in the average wealth of 'underrepresented groups' and therefore an increase in the average wealth of the nation, which is good for minorities and non-minorities alike in the big picture . At face value this seems plausible, and it is this face-value plausibility that the article and my opponent rely on as the article provides no real world examples of such a big picture benefit actually taking place. In fact this statement simply does not hold up to critical examination. The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is . In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid. Besides the claims made in the article my opponent has not yet presented any reason to believe that affirmative action really is about helping genuinely disadvantaged people rather than just trying to 'even out' the opportunities of minorities compared to non-minorities by taking away opportunities away from non-minority groups. I spent more time in rebuttal than I had intended, so I will make my positive case in favor of the proposition short and to the point: Basically, as I touched on before, affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons. Affirmative action is about 'evening out' the opportunities of minorities compared to non-minorities (blacks and whites in the example provided by cons article) by taking away opportunities from non-minority groups. It does this by defining a certain group as in need of assistance because of their race and using resources that otherwise would have been avaliable to individuals who do not qualify as the governments definition of who is 'in need of assistance'. When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious. I will attempt to build a stronger positive case in the final round, but unfortunately that is all I have time to say for now. I hope that I have at least given my opponent enough to work with in defending the assertions they have made in round one. [1] Quote from the article linked by con in round one.

Politics

Affirmative-action-promotes-rascism./1/

My opponent contends in round one that affirmative action policy in fact gives a benefit to what I have been referring to as the 'big picture' and uses this contention as the basis for his argument against the proposition. My opponent asks that I support my claim that affirmatibe action programs on their own do not result in such a benefit. Very well. Premise one: Affirmative action policies have been established by the government in the past. Premise two: At the time that affirmative action policies have been established in the past no signifigant GDP per capita growth took place as a result Conclusion one: Shown by premise one and two- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on national GDP Premise three: National GDP per capita is a useful measure of the health of the 'big picture' Conclusion two: Shown by conclusion one and premise three- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on the health of the 'big picture'. Definitions: Significant-More than would be expected had no affirmative action policy been put in place Defense of premise one- The easy part In round one I presented a certain definition of an affirmative action policy. Therefore, to uphold this premise all I need to do is demonstrate that a policy matching this definition has been implemented in the past. As my opponents argument from round one was in the context of the United States, I will use the example provided by Executive Order 11246. This order legally required certain institutions (in this case, federal contractors of a certain size) to favor individuals of a certain group/race (in this case, any minority group that a government review deemed as 'underrepresented') with employment opportunities Source: United States Department of Labor <URL>... Defense of premise two- Look at this graph As you can see here around the time that affirmative action policies have been established in premise one to have been put in place (executive Order 11246 was signed in 1965) the increase in GDP remains stable when compared to the general trend of GDP per capita over time (excluding, for obvious reasons, times such as the great depression). Because the trend is followed so closely during this time, premise two is upheld. Source: Department of Labor again, third graph . They cite the Department of Commerce (bea.gov) <URL>... Defense of premise three- My opponent agrees In round one my opponent posted an article in general support of his primary claim which he outlined in round one. In this article it is claimed, as I have quoted in round two, that an increase in the average national GDP would benefit society as a whole. If my opponent disagrees with premise three then he is contradicting the only source that he has used to support his claim and therefore admits that said source is unreliable. Conclusion: Affirmative action does not necessarily have an overall positive big picture effect and my claim that it produces no new opportunities in the big picture is shown to be valid. My final words on the matter: Because I am unable (due to time, character, and motivation restraints) to provide such statistics for every single example of affirmative action policy established in history my opponent could very plausibly argue that some other policy matching the definition put into place somewhere else in the world at some other time does have a positive effect. I would be open to such a suggestion, provided that my opponent backs this statement up with an actual example in real life just as I have done . Until then, my conclusion and all arguments supported by it stand.

Discipulus_Didicit

My opponent contends in round one that affirmative action policy in fact gives a benefit to what I have been referring to as the 'big picture' and uses this contention as the basis for his argument against the proposition. My opponent asks that I support my claim that affirmatibe action programs on their own do not result in such a benefit. Very well. Premise one: Affirmative action policies have been established by the government in the past. Premise two: At the time that affirmative action policies have been established in the past no signifigant GDP per capita growth took place as a result Conclusion one: Shown by premise one and two- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on national GDP Premise three: National GDP per capita is a useful measure of the health of the 'big picture' Conclusion two: Shown by conclusion one and premise three- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on the health of the 'big picture'. Definitions: Significant-More than would be expected had no affirmative action policy been put in place Defense of premise one- The easy part In round one I presented a certain definition of an affirmative action policy. Therefore, to uphold this premise all I need to do is demonstrate that a policy matching this definition has been implemented in the past. As my opponents argument from round one was in the context of the United States, I will use the example provided by Executive Order 11246. This order legally required certain institutions (in this case, federal contractors of a certain size) to favor individuals of a certain group/race (in this case, any minority group that a government review deemed as 'underrepresented') with employment opportunities Source: United States Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov... Defense of premise two- Look at this graph As you can see here around the time that affirmative action policies have been established in premise one to have been put in place (executive Order 11246 was signed in 1965) the increase in GDP remains stable when compared to the general trend of GDP per capita over time (excluding, for obvious reasons, times such as the great depression). Because the trend is followed so closely during this time, premise two is upheld. Source: Department of Labor again, third graph . They cite the Department of Commerce (bea.gov) http://www.dol.gov... Defense of premise three- My opponent agrees In round one my opponent posted an article in general support of his primary claim which he outlined in round one. In this article it is claimed, as I have quoted in round two, that an increase in the average national GDP would benefit society as a whole. If my opponent disagrees with premise three then he is contradicting the only source that he has used to support his claim and therefore admits that said source is unreliable. Conclusion: Affirmative action does not necessarily have an overall positive big picture effect and my claim that it produces no new opportunities in the big picture is shown to be valid. My final words on the matter: Because I am unable (due to time, character, and motivation restraints) to provide such statistics for every single example of affirmative action policy established in history my opponent could very plausibly argue that some other policy matching the definition put into place somewhere else in the world at some other time does have a positive effect. I would be open to such a suggestion, provided that my opponent backs this statement up with an actual example in real life just as I have done . Until then, my conclusion and all arguments supported by it stand.

Politics

Affirmative-action-promotes-rascism./1/

"Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance." It turns out that all ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other benefit from affirmative action ( <URL>... ) so using your own definition: "Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance." The presentation of this is absolutely accurate! It just turns out that instead of "group/race" it's just "group" and it's really "impoverished persons". Supporting the idea that yu don't have to live in poverty because those who came before you made poor choices or sadly never dug themselves out no matter their efforts seems somewhat just and definitely no racist. In an ironic bout it is not racist to note that there are a greater number of minorities but it is entirely racist to focus the lamp on those minorities claiming that the majority receives nothing and that it is based entirely on race versus other factors like poverty which are truly universal.

blackkid

"Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance." It turns out that all ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other benefit from affirmative action ( http://www.diversityinc.com... ) so using your own definition: "Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance." The presentation of this is absolutely accurate! It just turns out that instead of "group/race" it's just "group" and it's really "impoverished persons". Supporting the idea that yu don't have to live in poverty because those who came before you made poor choices or sadly never dug themselves out no matter their efforts seems somewhat just and definitely no racist. In an ironic bout it is not racist to note that there are a greater number of minorities but it is entirely racist to focus the lamp on those minorities claiming that the majority receives nothing and that it is based entirely on race versus other factors like poverty which are truly universal.

Politics

Affirmative-action-promotes-rascism./1/

I'm not one for longevity so straight to the points: "The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is. In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid." There is no reasoning behind this other than a perceived "swap" of opportunities however this isn't shown to be true (that one person loses while one person gains under AA) and thus is inherently dismissed as mere opinion. A statement alone is not sufficient, that is to say, there is absolutely no reasoning behind this statement nor are their any citations nor are there any arguments. It's just a claim. Because this is true I have no "rebuttal" since there's nothing to actually refute and it is my opponent's job to genuinely prove his claims. Pro needs to somehow solidify these: 1. " ... affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons." 2. "When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious." Until then there's really not much for me to do.

blackkid

I'm not one for longevity so straight to the points: "The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is. In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid." There is no reasoning behind this other than a perceived "swap" of opportunities however this isn't shown to be true (that one person loses while one person gains under AA) and thus is inherently dismissed as mere opinion. A statement alone is not sufficient, that is to say, there is absolutely no reasoning behind this statement nor are their any citations nor are there any arguments. It's just a claim. Because this is true I have no "rebuttal" since there's nothing to actually refute and it is my opponent's job to genuinely prove his claims. Pro needs to somehow solidify these: 1. " ... affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons." 2. "When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious." Until then there's really not much for me to do.

Politics

Affirmative-action-promotes-rascism./1/

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn? The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative? (hint: it doesn't.) Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words". What a waste of time. Vote Pro, he can have the "W" for effort.

blackkid

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn? The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative? (hint: it doesn't.) Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words". What a waste of time. Vote Pro, he can have the "W" for effort.

Politics

Affirmative-action-promotes-rascism./1/

Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties. P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty. C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care. ""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form 'One mustnever (or always) ph to the fullest extent possible in C', while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form 'One must sometimes and to some extent ph in C'" [1] According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. "Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law" [2] We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Contention 2: Universal Health Care is inneffective. "Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment." [4] Here we can see that even in nations that have this health system that it actually makes this issues worse in terms of waiting for treatment and to extend the damage we can see this hurts the freedom of the individual and that is something that needs to be preserved. "The employee is better off to charge a $50 doctor bill to the insurance company--even if the [insurance] company spends $20 to process it--and have the employer pay the extra $70 in a higher premium to cover the bill and the processing cost. The alternative--having the employer pay [the employee] an extra $70 in cash- yields the employee only about $42 [because of federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes] and costs the employer $75.36 ($70 + $5.36, the employer's portion of the social security and Medicare tax on $70)." [5] Here we can see that the affects of the Universal Health Care is disasterous to our economy as the costs are keeping pace with that of one of the Top US economic movers. We can see that this will severely harm our nation and that this law will cost our nation a total of 2.9 MILLION jobs. [6] This is abserd, because instead of focusing on national healthcare it would be better for our nation to focus on economic growth and advancement, but this is doing the exact opposite by killing jobs for the sake of a lost cause as this doesn't ensure that you will get better treatment. No, it's a loss of jobs, economic growth, and finially a great loss in Medical Treatment. This is something that my opponent cannot account for, because even if it's free to get your brains blown out it doesn't mean you're going to do it and you sure wouldn't want to do it. The only economic growth you may see is that on the insurance companies side due to the federal government colluding with Insurance Companies to require that everyone purchases their product. [7] Even at that the Insurance Companies are finding themselves down in profits by 0.3% in late last year from the year before. This is another threat to freedom as the federal government is creating an economic monopoly which poses on Economic Freedom. Here I would like to quote Economist Milton Friedman on the matter, "There is no special role for government in the medical care field at all. There is the same role for government in this area, as there is in every other field - to enforce laws against fraud and deception, to help some people who are in dire distress. For ordinary medical care, there is no case for government financing at all. The costs of ordinary medical care are well within the means of the average American family. And the problem of sometimes it being large and sometimes it being small is readily handled through the availability of private insurance arrangements." [Youtube video] Here we can see that the federal government, nor any nation's government, should involve themselves in this field as for it harms the economic freedom by limiting the choice of health care and this is the type of collusion that Saul D. Alinsky would support. The system my opponent is purposing is a form of price Control and price controls can harm a buisness for one of two reasons. 1. That the Government sets the price to high and the public buys less and less of the product and as a result this harms the buisness and the economy and it shows that the people do not want said product. This product's price then raises again in order to make up for the lack of growth forcing the government out of buisness. 2. The governemtn sets the price to low and people will buy the product out and there will be a shortage of said product. [8] Many people state the rising premiums is due to the collusion of the private industry, but one can see that this isn't due to the collution of the Private Companies, but this is more or less the collecting and merging of Private Industry in this industry. We can see the lack of Competition harms the pricing and option as with more competition there are more companies competitng for lower prices to get custumors who try to get a better deal. We can see that this merging has harmed the economy and that Nationalization will harm it even more. [9] Furthering we just need to look at the Yugos which is a car from the former Yugoslavia. Due to the industry being Nationalized we can see that the quality of the car never improved due to no incentive to improve buisness due to the lack of the market competition. The same thing can and will happen to the health care if you nationalize it. Contention 3: Rand Paul Counter Plan Solves. I'm afraid that I'm running out of character space and room here so I'll have to be brief on this. -Federal Employees have better health care options and choices than the average American. -Federal Employees have over 150 Health Care Options. -Offer Average Americans these options instead of 1 insurance mandated by the government as their main care. -Private citizens may also selected a secondary care if they wish and it would be separate from their premier that would be from their job. -This would thus solve Disadvantages of my opponent's case while solving the free market issues that his causes. [9] and [youtube video Milton Friedman]

lannan13

Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties. P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty. C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care. ""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1] According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. “Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2] We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Contention 2: Universal Health Care is inneffective. "Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment.” [4] Here we can see that even in nations that have this health system that it actually makes this issues worse in terms of waiting for treatment and to extend the damage we can see this hurts the freedom of the individual and that is something that needs to be preserved. “The employee is better off to charge a $50 doctor bill to the insurance company—even if the [insurance] company spends $20 to process it—and have the employer pay the extra $70 in a higher premium to cover the bill and the processing cost. The alternative—having the employer pay [the employee] an extra $70 in cash– yields the employee only about $42 [because of federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes] and costs the employer $75.36 ($70 + $5.36, the employer’s portion of the social security and Medicare tax on $70).” [5] Here we can see that the affects of the Universal Health Care is disasterous to our economy as the costs are keeping pace with that of one of the Top US economic movers. We can see that this will severely harm our nation and that this law will cost our nation a total of 2.9 MILLION jobs. [6] This is abserd, because instead of focusing on national healthcare it would be better for our nation to focus on economic growth and advancement, but this is doing the exact opposite by killing jobs for the sake of a lost cause as this doesn't ensure that you will get better treatment. No, it's a loss of jobs, economic growth, and finially a great loss in Medical Treatment. This is something that my opponent cannot account for, because even if it's free to get your brains blown out it doesn't mean you're going to do it and you sure wouldn't want to do it. The only economic growth you may see is that on the insurance companies side due to the federal government colluding with Insurance Companies to require that everyone purchases their product. [7] Even at that the Insurance Companies are finding themselves down in profits by 0.3% in late last year from the year before. This is another threat to freedom as the federal government is creating an economic monopoly which poses on Economic Freedom. Here I would like to quote Economist Milton Friedman on the matter, "There is no special role for government in the medical care field at all. There is the same role for government in this area, as there is in every other field – to enforce laws against fraud and deception, to help some people who are in dire distress. For ordinary medical care, there is no case for government financing at all. The costs of ordinary medical care are well within the means of the average American family. And the problem of sometimes it being large and sometimes it being small is readily handled through the availability of private insurance arrangements." [Youtube video] Here we can see that the federal government, nor any nation's government, should involve themselves in this field as for it harms the economic freedom by limiting the choice of health care and this is the type of collusion that Saul D. Alinsky would support. The system my opponent is purposing is a form of price Control and price controls can harm a buisness for one of two reasons. 1. That the Government sets the price to high and the public buys less and less of the product and as a result this harms the buisness and the economy and it shows that the people do not want said product. This product's price then raises again in order to make up for the lack of growth forcing the government out of buisness. 2. The governemtn sets the price to low and people will buy the product out and there will be a shortage of said product. [8] Many people state the rising premiums is due to the collusion of the private industry, but one can see that this isn't due to the collution of the Private Companies, but this is more or less the collecting and merging of Private Industry in this industry. We can see the lack of Competition harms the pricing and option as with more competition there are more companies competitng for lower prices to get custumors who try to get a better deal. We can see that this merging has harmed the economy and that Nationalization will harm it even more. [9] Furthering we just need to look at the Yugos which is a car from the former Yugoslavia. Due to the industry being Nationalized we can see that the quality of the car never improved due to no incentive to improve buisness due to the lack of the market competition. The same thing can and will happen to the health care if you nationalize it. Contention 3: Rand Paul Counter Plan Solves. I'm afraid that I'm running out of character space and room here so I'll have to be brief on this. -Federal Employees have better health care options and choices than the average American. -Federal Employees have over 150 Health Care Options. -Offer Average Americans these options instead of 1 insurance mandated by the government as their main care. -Private citizens may also selected a secondary care if they wish and it would be separate from their premier that would be from their job. -This would thus solve Disadvantages of my opponent's case while solving the free market issues that his causes. [9] and [youtube video Milton Friedman]

Health

Affordable-Care-Act/2/

All points extended. Vote Con.

lannan13

All points extended. Vote Con.

Health

Affordable-Care-Act/2/

I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate case and I hope we can have a wonderful debate. My opponent did not decide to define his terms or come out with a definite case topic other then the fact he does not believe African Americans deserve "easy breaks." I would like to pose these three counter contentions along with my own points to what my opponent stated. Contention #1: There are a number of breaks out there for everybody. I am currently in my last year of High school and you can get a scholarship for just about anything. If you're Italian like I am, if you're American Indian, and even if you're left handed for example. African Americans can't enter such contests if they don't meet these requirements and vice versa. Every different culture, race, and other special talents deserve to have their own separate scholarships. To say that these African Americans who gain these scholarships get "easy breaks" is ignorant considering the number of people who apply for these scholarships are hard workers. Contention #2: The CON (against) speaker is not looking hard enough for scholarships I pose to the CON speaker to look online, Google college scholarships among other things. Just because your high school may not have many essay competitions that you qualify for doesn't mean they aren't out there. I also think you are overstating the situation in your school. To tell me there are no essay competitions in your school whatsoever for you is I believe false. There are college scholarships again as I stated for Italians, Irish people, and different people who would be considered "White." Contention #3: Scholarships are earned, not handed out. As I stated earlier, in the rumble tumble world that is now college scholarships there are now people applying more then ever. To say that just any person gets such scholarships would be ignorant of the process. These people that hand out the scholarships look at your grades, G.P.A, after school activities, volunteer work, and whether you have a job. To try and take away such scholarships because you may not qualify for them are wrong. I have no idea what ethnicity you are, but if you Google a scholarship for it then I'm sure it's out there. Also, usually to get such scholarships they must write say something like an essay. Here's an example website of unusual scholarships that people can apply for: <URL>... And here: <URL>... And might as well send you here: <URL>... Just because the CON speaker does not want to take the time to find such scholarships is not African Americans, mine, or anyone else's problem but his own. I am sure that if you take the time, do the research, and apply that you will get the scholarships you want/need for college. I would like to take this time to once again thank the CON team for creating this debate and I urge everyone to vote for PRO when that time comes.

Robert_Santurri

I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate case and I hope we can have a wonderful debate. My opponent did not decide to define his terms or come out with a definite case topic other then the fact he does not believe African Americans deserve "easy breaks." I would like to pose these three counter contentions along with my own points to what my opponent stated. Contention #1: There are a number of breaks out there for everybody. I am currently in my last year of High school and you can get a scholarship for just about anything. If you're Italian like I am, if you're American Indian, and even if you're left handed for example. African Americans can't enter such contests if they don't meet these requirements and vice versa. Every different culture, race, and other special talents deserve to have their own separate scholarships. To say that these African Americans who gain these scholarships get "easy breaks" is ignorant considering the number of people who apply for these scholarships are hard workers. Contention #2: The CON (against) speaker is not looking hard enough for scholarships I pose to the CON speaker to look online, Google college scholarships among other things. Just because your high school may not have many essay competitions that you qualify for doesn't mean they aren't out there. I also think you are overstating the situation in your school. To tell me there are no essay competitions in your school whatsoever for you is I believe false. There are college scholarships again as I stated for Italians, Irish people, and different people who would be considered "White." Contention #3: Scholarships are earned, not handed out. As I stated earlier, in the rumble tumble world that is now college scholarships there are now people applying more then ever. To say that just any person gets such scholarships would be ignorant of the process. These people that hand out the scholarships look at your grades, G.P.A, after school activities, volunteer work, and whether you have a job. To try and take away such scholarships because you may not qualify for them are wrong. I have no idea what ethnicity you are, but if you Google a scholarship for it then I'm sure it's out there. Also, usually to get such scholarships they must write say something like an essay. Here's an example website of unusual scholarships that people can apply for: http://scholarship.lifetips.com... And here: http://www.finaid.org... And might as well send you here: http://www.google.com... Just because the CON speaker does not want to take the time to find such scholarships is not African Americans, mine, or anyone else's problem but his own. I am sure that if you take the time, do the research, and apply that you will get the scholarships you want/need for college. I would like to take this time to once again thank the CON team for creating this debate and I urge everyone to vote for PRO when that time comes.

Miscellaneous

African-Americans-easy-breaks-deserved-or-not/1/

I would just like to take this time to ask that the readers/voters extend my whole case down as my opponent has failed to come up with a response in a reasonable amount of time. My opponent has forfeited this round and I do hope he will return for Round 3 so we shall be able to continue this debate. If he does, I ask that you do remember his forfeit in this round. Thank you again for taking the time to read this debate and please do what is right when the time comes by voting PRO. - Robert

Robert_Santurri

I would just like to take this time to ask that the readers/voters extend my whole case down as my opponent has failed to come up with a response in a reasonable amount of time. My opponent has forfeited this round and I do hope he will return for Round 3 so we shall be able to continue this debate. If he does, I ask that you do remember his forfeit in this round. Thank you again for taking the time to read this debate and please do what is right when the time comes by voting PRO. - Robert

Miscellaneous

African-Americans-easy-breaks-deserved-or-not/1/

I would just like to take this time to ask once again that the readers/voters extend my whole case down as my opponent has failed to come up with a response in a reasonable amount of time. My opponent has forfeited both the second and third round. I have disproven my opponent's points while none of mine have been disproven. I realize that past the first round this has been a short debate but I would like to thank you again for reading this debate. Finally, I ask for you the reader/voter to do what it is right and vote PRO above. Thank you - Robert

Robert_Santurri

I would just like to take this time to ask once again that the readers/voters extend my whole case down as my opponent has failed to come up with a response in a reasonable amount of time. My opponent has forfeited both the second and third round. I have disproven my opponent's points while none of mine have been disproven. I realize that past the first round this has been a short debate but I would like to thank you again for reading this debate. Finally, I ask for you the reader/voter to do what it is right and vote PRO above. Thank you - Robert

Miscellaneous

African-Americans-easy-breaks-deserved-or-not/1/

African Americans are always getting alot of contests, etc. that only african americans can enter, sometimes these prizes would be helpful to me in my road to college while maintaining a good g.p.a. I personally don't think this is fair, lets for example say if you are of latin decent that you get $10,000 worth of money to help you with anything that you need help with a year. If this plan ever came true everyone wouldn't accept or say that it is fair, except for that latinos. I don't know about you, but at my highschool there is no other essay competitions that are for anyone but african americans, i haven't seen a college scholarship that is only eligable for white people, because everyone would think this would be racist, well is this fair to other races?

sal757

African Americans are always getting alot of contests, etc. that only african americans can enter, sometimes these prizes would be helpful to me in my road to college while maintaining a good g.p.a. I personally don't think this is fair, lets for example say if you are of latin decent that you get $10,000 worth of money to help you with anything that you need help with a year. If this plan ever came true everyone wouldn't accept or say that it is fair, except for that latinos. I don't know about you, but at my highschool there is no other essay competitions that are for anyone but african americans, i haven't seen a college scholarship that is only eligable for white people, because everyone would think this would be racist, well is this fair to other races?

Miscellaneous

African-Americans-easy-breaks-deserved-or-not/1/

Since my opponent has yet to make any arguments I will introduce Jason Bourne. He is this man: <URL>... I await my opponent's arguments to affirm the resolution.

Korashk

Since my opponent has yet to make any arguments I will introduce Jason Bourne. He is this man: http://bourne.wikia.com... I await my opponent's arguments to affirm the resolution.

Entertainment

Agent-47-would-kill-Jason-bourne-in-a-fight../1/

Unfortunate; I await my opponent's arguments.

Korashk

Unfortunate; I await my opponent's arguments.

Entertainment

Agent-47-would-kill-Jason-bourne-in-a-fight../1/

Unfortunate.

Korashk

Unfortunate.

Entertainment

Agent-47-would-kill-Jason-bourne-in-a-fight../1/

Greetings. I would like thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish him the best of luck in the proceeding rounds. Whereas my opponent believes that it is more sensible to be an agnostic, I negate this by pointing out that my opponent is comparing apples and oranges. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity whereas an agnostic is one who claims to lack knowledge (or to be more precisely, evidence that there is a deity). Basically, one can be an agnostic AND an atheist as belief and knowledge are not the same. This would make any comparison pointless and allow us to conclude that they are at best equal since neither is truly better. Additional contentions may be provided in the next round depending on my opponent's response. Ta Ta for now. :D

Logical-Master

Greetings. I would like thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish him the best of luck in the proceeding rounds. Whereas my opponent believes that it is more sensible to be an agnostic, I negate this by pointing out that my opponent is comparing apples and oranges. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity whereas an agnostic is one who claims to lack knowledge (or to be more precisely, evidence that there is a deity). Basically, one can be an agnostic AND an atheist as belief and knowledge are not the same. This would make any comparison pointless and allow us to conclude that they are at best equal since neither is truly better. Additional contentions may be provided in the next round depending on my opponent's response. Ta Ta for now. :D

Religion

Agnostics-vs-Atheists/1/

RE: "You cannot be both an agnostic AND an atheist because the two are contradictory (otherwise I don't think they would be two separate categories)." <URL>... <URL>... Quote from second source: "Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. " RE: "An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period." Correct. RE: "An agnostic says there is no proof for or against the existence of a deity, so we really don't know (therefore the existence of a diety MIGHT be possible)" Absolutely. However, ask yourself something: How do these two definitions contradict each other? For instance, if I deny the existence of someone more arrogant than myself, but admit that it is possible . . . would you claim I was contradicting myself? Or better yet, if I told you that I did not believe that I'd win the lottery with my lottery ticket tonight, but admit that winning was possible, would tell me that my claims can in no way be made together? What I'm dictating is that the case is the same here. Atheism is merely the lack of belief [I would say "doesn't believe or believes not", but I don't feel like being dragged into semantics in the comment section. ;) ] in a deity; it is not the claim that a deity absolutely doesn't exist or that one KNOWS without a doubt that this is the case. What my fair opponent is thinking of is gnostic atheism. RE:"I am arguing that it is more sensible to be agnostic simply because atheism is built on an argument of ignorance. It assumes that because no deities have been proven to exist, there are no deities. That's almost like saying just because we haven't seen or proven the existence of extra-terrestrial life that means that there are no such things as aliens." Not at all. People in general have all sorts of reasons for becoming atheist. There are some who are atheist because they believe they themselves have proven God to be nonexistent (i.e. Ragnar Rahl). Heck, one of the most recent debates on this website is from someone who believes they have disproven theism. My opponent's problem is with certain atheist and not atheism itself . . . ergo, his argument is revealed to be the red herring fallacy in action. RE: " Keep in mind that whatever we deem a deity doesn't necessarily have to have created the universe or even be responsible for the creation of life. It just simply must have immense power and be immortal." Oh absolutely. Though how is this relevant? RE: "For what I know, we're not so far off from being deities" If that is the case, then by my opponent's rendering of the subject. agnosticism would be equally faulty granted that it is insisting that there is no evidence to make a conclusion, in spite of the evidence clearly being in front of us (quite literally). And that'll do it for now.

Logical-Master

RE: "You cannot be both an agnostic AND an atheist because the two are contradictory (otherwise I don't think they would be two separate categories)." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://atheism.about.com... Quote from second source: "Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. " RE: "An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period." Correct. RE: "An agnostic says there is no proof for or against the existence of a deity, so we really don't know (therefore the existence of a diety MIGHT be possible)" Absolutely. However, ask yourself something: How do these two definitions contradict each other? For instance, if I deny the existence of someone more arrogant than myself, but admit that it is possible . . . would you claim I was contradicting myself? Or better yet, if I told you that I did not believe that I'd win the lottery with my lottery ticket tonight, but admit that winning was possible, would tell me that my claims can in no way be made together? What I'm dictating is that the case is the same here. Atheism is merely the lack of belief [I would say "doesn't believe or believes not", but I don't feel like being dragged into semantics in the comment section. ;) ] in a deity; it is not the claim that a deity absolutely doesn't exist or that one KNOWS without a doubt that this is the case. What my fair opponent is thinking of is gnostic atheism. RE:"I am arguing that it is more sensible to be agnostic simply because atheism is built on an argument of ignorance. It assumes that because no deities have been proven to exist, there are no deities. That's almost like saying just because we haven't seen or proven the existence of extra-terrestrial life that means that there are no such things as aliens." Not at all. People in general have all sorts of reasons for becoming atheist. There are some who are atheist because they believe they themselves have proven God to be nonexistent (i.e. Ragnar Rahl). Heck, one of the most recent debates on this website is from someone who believes they have disproven theism. My opponent's problem is with certain atheist and not atheism itself . . . ergo, his argument is revealed to be the red herring fallacy in action. RE: " Keep in mind that whatever we deem a deity doesn't necessarily have to have created the universe or even be responsible for the creation of life. It just simply must have immense power and be immortal." Oh absolutely. Though how is this relevant? RE: "For what I know, we're not so far off from being deities" If that is the case, then by my opponent's rendering of the subject. agnosticism would be equally faulty granted that it is insisting that there is no evidence to make a conclusion, in spite of the evidence clearly being in front of us (quite literally). And that'll do it for now.

Religion

Agnostics-vs-Atheists/1/

RE:"Yet, an agnostic doesn't deny anything, but just claims to lack knowledge." Only if this agnostic is not also an atheist. :) RE: "Now, you made a sneaky attempt to try and coin the term "agnostic atheist." " Hmm? I don't see how it would be qualified as sneaky. The terms I've been using are well established as confirmed by the sources which I posted in the previous round. RE: "However there is a difference between an "agnostic atheist" and an atheist." As much as a difference as there is between a tree with branches and leaves and a tree with branches without leaves I suppose. RE: "You see, where an atheist is in strict denial, an agnostic atheist simply doesn't "believe" in a deity, but claims to lack definite knowledge of this and therefore opens up the door for possibility." How is not believing any different from strict denial? I mean sure, one can use semantics to place heavy emphasis on "strict", but that's not what we're here to do. ;) The fact of the matter is that atheism is limited to two positions (well actually, three if we include the incredbly small sect who is apathetic to the "knowledge" aspect): Gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism. The kind of atheism whom he refers to would be classified as a gnostic atheist as an individual of this stance is of the mindset that there is no possibility; that he/she KNOWS that God does not exist. My point being is that atheism alone is not something which does not open the door for possibility, contrary to what my opponent has been insisting throughout this debate. RE: "Atheism alone doesn't imply knowledge or lack of knowledge, just lack of belief. " Precisely my point. Atheism alone says nothing about knowledge. RE: "Mere lack of belief without knowledge to back it is just like belief without knowledge to back it: it's an argument of ignorance." Whoa whoa whoa. Lets stop right there. Who said there was no knowledge? Atheism merely states nothing about knowledge, but it does not mean that one is not basing their belief or lack of belief on knowledge. When one claims to be an atheist, ALL we know so far is that this one individual does not believe in the existence of a deity. We know nothing else. If I say I believe my "would-be" girlfriend is a good person, you don't know whether or not I am basing this claim of belief on experiences or faith alone. Belief says nothing about knowledge, but that most certainly does not imply that there is no knowledge. The reason I went about defining the two halves of atheism (gnostic and agnostic) was to clarify on this matter. RE: "Perhaps atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory, but that still doesn't make them equally sensible. " Well it's either that or we are left with concluding that they simply cannot be compared. The purpose of my arguments in this debate was to show that my opponents reasons for concluding that one was better (which I had known since R1) than the other was faulty given that his rendering of both ideas (agnosticism and atheism) was faulty. RE: "Logic favors agnosticism." Not necessarily. Seeing as how we've both agreed to use the "lack of belief" paradigm on atheism, one could conclude that you are an atheist. In addition, if we are both to agree to the notion that there is no evidence, having a lack of belief is logically justified. :D RE: "atheism isn't logically sound without the addition of agnosticism (hence the term "agnostic atheism")" The only attempt at supporting this claim (that atheism is illogical) of which I've seen is the "argument from ignorance" point (which concludes that atheist believe there is no god since there is no evidence). As can be indicated in my second round, I've already trounced this argument by pointing out that not all atheist are atheist for the same reasons (many gnostic atheist have insisted that they have evidence and argumention which disproves God and there are many who are simply agnostic atheist--whcih my opponent agrees as being a logical position). Thus essentially, the above is simply ad nauseum. My opponent fails on the grounds they he has yet to dispute my contention on this matter. CONCLUSION: The mere fact that my opponent even agrees that any form of atheism is logical should demonstrate that he acknowledges the problem with his argument. He makes assumptions on what it takes to be an atheist, only to end up ignoring the flexibility of this position. It can very easily meet the ideas which agnosticism proposes, hence why I've argued that there is equality (of course, one can go about saying that they are not comparible based on this information). In any case, I've established that there is no reason for us to conclude that agnosticism (at least from how my opponent has rendered it) is greater than atheism and thus urge that you vote CON. Thanks for the debate. :D

Logical-Master

RE:"Yet, an agnostic doesn't deny anything, but just claims to lack knowledge." Only if this agnostic is not also an atheist. :) RE: "Now, you made a sneaky attempt to try and coin the term "agnostic atheist." " Hmm? I don't see how it would be qualified as sneaky. The terms I've been using are well established as confirmed by the sources which I posted in the previous round. RE: "However there is a difference between an "agnostic atheist" and an atheist." As much as a difference as there is between a tree with branches and leaves and a tree with branches without leaves I suppose. RE: "You see, where an atheist is in strict denial, an agnostic atheist simply doesn't "believe" in a deity, but claims to lack definite knowledge of this and therefore opens up the door for possibility." How is not believing any different from strict denial? I mean sure, one can use semantics to place heavy emphasis on "strict", but that's not what we're here to do. ;) The fact of the matter is that atheism is limited to two positions (well actually, three if we include the incredbly small sect who is apathetic to the "knowledge" aspect): Gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism. The kind of atheism whom he refers to would be classified as a gnostic atheist as an individual of this stance is of the mindset that there is no possibility; that he/she KNOWS that God does not exist. My point being is that atheism alone is not something which does not open the door for possibility, contrary to what my opponent has been insisting throughout this debate. RE: "Atheism alone doesn't imply knowledge or lack of knowledge, just lack of belief. " Precisely my point. Atheism alone says nothing about knowledge. RE: "Mere lack of belief without knowledge to back it is just like belief without knowledge to back it: it's an argument of ignorance." Whoa whoa whoa. Lets stop right there. Who said there was no knowledge? Atheism merely states nothing about knowledge, but it does not mean that one is not basing their belief or lack of belief on knowledge. When one claims to be an atheist, ALL we know so far is that this one individual does not believe in the existence of a deity. We know nothing else. If I say I believe my "would-be" girlfriend is a good person, you don't know whether or not I am basing this claim of belief on experiences or faith alone. Belief says nothing about knowledge, but that most certainly does not imply that there is no knowledge. The reason I went about defining the two halves of atheism (gnostic and agnostic) was to clarify on this matter. RE: "Perhaps atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory, but that still doesn't make them equally sensible. " Well it's either that or we are left with concluding that they simply cannot be compared. The purpose of my arguments in this debate was to show that my opponents reasons for concluding that one was better (which I had known since R1) than the other was faulty given that his rendering of both ideas (agnosticism and atheism) was faulty. RE: "Logic favors agnosticism." Not necessarily. Seeing as how we've both agreed to use the "lack of belief" paradigm on atheism, one could conclude that you are an atheist. In addition, if we are both to agree to the notion that there is no evidence, having a lack of belief is logically justified. :D RE: "atheism isn't logically sound without the addition of agnosticism (hence the term "agnostic atheism")" The only attempt at supporting this claim (that atheism is illogical) of which I've seen is the "argument from ignorance" point (which concludes that atheist believe there is no god since there is no evidence). As can be indicated in my second round, I've already trounced this argument by pointing out that not all atheist are atheist for the same reasons (many gnostic atheist have insisted that they have evidence and argumention which disproves God and there are many who are simply agnostic atheist--whcih my opponent agrees as being a logical position). Thus essentially, the above is simply ad nauseum. My opponent fails on the grounds they he has yet to dispute my contention on this matter. CONCLUSION: The mere fact that my opponent even agrees that any form of atheism is logical should demonstrate that he acknowledges the problem with his argument. He makes assumptions on what it takes to be an atheist, only to end up ignoring the flexibility of this position. It can very easily meet the ideas which agnosticism proposes, hence why I've argued that there is equality (of course, one can go about saying that they are not comparible based on this information). In any case, I've established that there is no reason for us to conclude that agnosticism (at least from how my opponent has rendered it) is greater than atheism and thus urge that you vote CON. Thanks for the debate. :D

Religion

Agnostics-vs-Atheists/1/

Hello everyone. This debate is about what is more sensible, being an agnostic or being an atheist. I am taking the side of the agnostic. I ask that whoever takes this debate be an atheist, otherwise you automatically lose.

diety

Hello everyone. This debate is about what is more sensible, being an agnostic or being an atheist. I am taking the side of the agnostic. I ask that whoever takes this debate be an atheist, otherwise you automatically lose.

Religion

Agnostics-vs-Atheists/1/

Thank you Logical Master for accepting this debate. You cannot be both an agnostic AND an atheist because the two are contradictory (otherwise I don't think they would be two separate categories). An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period. An agnostic says there is no proof for or against the existence of a deity, so we really don't know (therefore the existence of a diety MIGHT be possible) I am arguing that it is more sensible to be agnostic simply because atheism is built on an argument of ignorance. It assumes that because no deities have been proven to exist, there are no deities. That's almost like saying just because we haven't seen or proven the existence of extra-terrestrial life that means that there are no such things as aliens. Keep in mind that whatever we deem a deity doesn't necessarily have to have created the universe or even be responsible for the creation of life. It just simply must have immense power and be immortal. For what I know, we're not so far off from being deities ;) I rest my case for now. <URL>...

diety

Thank you Logical Master for accepting this debate. You cannot be both an agnostic AND an atheist because the two are contradictory (otherwise I don't think they would be two separate categories). An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period. An agnostic says there is no proof for or against the existence of a deity, so we really don't know (therefore the existence of a diety MIGHT be possible) I am arguing that it is more sensible to be agnostic simply because atheism is built on an argument of ignorance. It assumes that because no deities have been proven to exist, there are no deities. That's almost like saying just because we haven't seen or proven the existence of extra-terrestrial life that means that there are no such things as aliens. Keep in mind that whatever we deem a deity doesn't necessarily have to have created the universe or even be responsible for the creation of life. It just simply must have immense power and be immortal. For what I know, we're not so far off from being deities ;) I rest my case for now. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Religion

Agnostics-vs-Atheists/1/

Alright then "RE: "An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period." Correct." Yet, an agnostic doesn't deny anything, but just claims to lack knowledge. Now, you made a sneaky attempt to try and coin the term "agnostic atheist." However there is a difference between an "agnostic atheist" and an atheist. You see, where an atheist is in strict denial, an agnostic atheist simply doesn't "believe" in a deity, but claims to lack definite knowledge of this and therefore opens up the door for possibility. Atheism alone doesn't imply knowledge or lack of knowledge, just lack of belief. Mere lack of belief without knowledge to back it is just like belief without knowledge to back it: it's an argument of ignorance. Perhaps atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory, but that still doesn't make them equally sensible. Atheism comes in many variations, and although agnostic atheism is one of them, gnostic atheism is another.... Let's ask ourselves this question: Do ANY deities exist A pure theist would say yes, a pure atheist would say no. But why? Well, the truth is we don't really know, so both claims would lack evidence to prove such a thing. Logic favors agnosticism. And though agnosticism would be logically sound without the addition of atheism, atheism isn't logically sound without the addition of agnosticism (hence the term "agnostic atheism") :) Well that's all the time I have for now. Peace

diety

Alright then "RE: "An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period." Correct." Yet, an agnostic doesn't deny anything, but just claims to lack knowledge. Now, you made a sneaky attempt to try and coin the term "agnostic atheist." However there is a difference between an "agnostic atheist" and an atheist. You see, where an atheist is in strict denial, an agnostic atheist simply doesn't "believe" in a deity, but claims to lack definite knowledge of this and therefore opens up the door for possibility. Atheism alone doesn't imply knowledge or lack of knowledge, just lack of belief. Mere lack of belief without knowledge to back it is just like belief without knowledge to back it: it's an argument of ignorance. Perhaps atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory, but that still doesn't make them equally sensible. Atheism comes in many variations, and although agnostic atheism is one of them, gnostic atheism is another.... Let's ask ourselves this question: Do ANY deities exist A pure theist would say yes, a pure atheist would say no. But why? Well, the truth is we don't really know, so both claims would lack evidence to prove such a thing. Logic favors agnosticism. And though agnosticism would be logically sound without the addition of atheism, atheism isn't logically sound without the addition of agnosticism (hence the term "agnostic atheism") :) Well that's all the time I have for now. Peace

Religion

Agnostics-vs-Atheists/1/

For years, Al Sharpton and the Jesse Jackson have called themselves Revs of god and yet they never utter more than two words on the subject! These are individuals that take any situation involving a black individual and spin it in the opposition of the other person within the situation. In other words, they intensify a situation in order for their own political and economical gain; and lets not forget....PUBLICITY. If you even try to argue with these individuals they use double talk and rabble rousing to their advantage in order to side step from the comment or point stated to them! There are many situations including the <PHONE> Tawanna Brawley case in which Al Sharpton used race baiting techniques to back up a black girl who claimed white men raped her. She was badly beat but no evidence or forensic analysis proved it was the men who did it, however, more pointed out she had it done to herself! The point is, AL Sharpton and Jesse jackson are for blacks ONLY!

RTN1994

For years, Al Sharpton and the Jesse Jackson have called themselves Revs of god and yet they never utter more than two words on the subject! These are individuals that take any situation involving a black individual and spin it in the opposition of the other person within the situation. In other words, they intensify a situation in order for their own political and economical gain; and lets not forget....PUBLICITY. If you even try to argue with these individuals they use double talk and rabble rousing to their advantage in order to side step from the comment or point stated to them! There are many situations including the 1988-1989 Tawanna Brawley case in which Al Sharpton used race baiting techniques to back up a black girl who claimed white men raped her. She was badly beat but no evidence or forensic analysis proved it was the men who did it, however, more pointed out she had it done to herself! The point is, AL Sharpton and Jesse jackson are for blacks ONLY!

Politics

Al-Sharpton-and-Jesse-Jackson-are-NO-MLK-and-are-racist/1/

The problem with CON's analysis of my comment is that he says "Being an advocate for the black community doesn't make you a racist" which I never said that was a bad thing nor makes you racist. He is right it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with standing up for a specific race when you see unjust, which he had shown Al Sharpton has done, which I applaud him for. However, Al Sharpton has also intensified situations (this is what CON doesn't want to bring up since it negates his argument). "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house".-Al Sharpton This was a situation that took place in the mid 1990's where Sharpton inflamed his followers against a Jew who was expanding his shop in NYC. His followers then killed that Jewish man, Al Sharpton being indirectly responsible. "Sharpton had no way to know Brawley had fabricated the charges" However he ruined the lives of the accused without any proof. Btw, MLK was for equality for all.

RTN1994

The problem with CON's analysis of my comment is that he says "Being an advocate for the black community doesn't make you a racist" which I never said that was a bad thing nor makes you racist. He is right it doesn't. There is nothing wrong with standing up for a specific race when you see unjust, which he had shown Al Sharpton has done, which I applaud him for. However, Al Sharpton has also intensified situations (this is what CON doesn't want to bring up since it negates his argument). "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house".-Al Sharpton This was a situation that took place in the mid 1990's where Sharpton inflamed his followers against a Jew who was expanding his shop in NYC. His followers then killed that Jewish man, Al Sharpton being indirectly responsible. "Sharpton had no way to know Brawley had fabricated the charges" However he ruined the lives of the accused without any proof. Btw, MLK was for equality for all.

Politics

Al-Sharpton-and-Jesse-Jackson-are-NO-MLK-and-are-racist/1/

My opponent hasn't given any credence that this man(Al Sharpton) is no peace maker, which is where I get the NO MLK part. You can attack MLK and use someone else's "review" on him, but the fact is that it was him who truly conquered the barrier between whites and blacks. We can go back and forth finding websites in the "shadows" of the internet, everyone has their own opinion and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data on individuals and subjects, however, you focusing on MLK and not the basis that I have made on SHARPTON NOT BEING AN MLK FIGURE still has yet to be answered, not surprised either. Al Sharpton cannot be called on "words" for racism against whites, its his actions. Representing "only white" people in this day and age has been deemed racist. The tea party is deemed racist for being mostly white. Al Sharpton has actually said that on his show, that they are. He only represents blacks and has always been against the white p. <URL>...

RTN1994

My opponent hasn't given any credence that this man(Al Sharpton) is no peace maker, which is where I get the NO MLK part. You can attack MLK and use someone else's "review" on him, but the fact is that it was him who truly conquered the barrier between whites and blacks. We can go back and forth finding websites in the "shadows" of the internet, everyone has their own opinion and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data on individuals and subjects, however, you focusing on MLK and not the basis that I have made on SHARPTON NOT BEING AN MLK FIGURE still has yet to be answered, not surprised either. Al Sharpton cannot be called on "words" for racism against whites, its his actions. Representing "only white" people in this day and age has been deemed racist. The tea party is deemed racist for being mostly white. Al Sharpton has actually said that on his show, that they are. He only represents blacks and has always been against the white p. http://www.theblaze.com...

Politics

Al-Sharpton-and-Jesse-Jackson-are-NO-MLK-and-are-racist/1/

Out of many Disney movies I have watched, I felt like Aladdin was the best. (Have yet to watch Beauty and the Beast) However, The Lion King, however emotional it was, felt like it had no comedy side to it, and in addition to the *ahem* "strange" parts of the movie, could not make it to beat up Aladdin. However, my opponent does not think so. He even says his gut says The Lion King is the best Disney movie of all time. Thus, we come to a clash of an epic battle-- the only slightly better-than-average debater, 9spaceking , versus one of the best debaters on the site, Raisor . I am almost certain that I will concede at some point of this debate, or at the very least get my butt kicked all the way to Pluto, but I wish to see more of how awesome The Lion King really is. Can the Lion King really beat my second favorite movie? Will I change my opinion? We will find this all out within this debate. Please wait at least one day to accept this debate, I am quite busy. Round one is for acceptance only. Good luck and I hope you have a magic carpet ride of a debate! :D And yes, I am aware there's a zombie judge there. I just put him there for fun and laughs. :P

9spaceking

Out of many Disney movies I have watched, I felt like Aladdin was the best. (Have yet to watch Beauty and the Beast) However, The Lion King, however emotional it was, felt like it had no comedy side to it, and in addition to the *ahem* "strange" parts of the movie, could not make it to beat up Aladdin. However, my opponent does not think so. He even says his gut says The Lion King is the best Disney movie of all time. Thus, we come to a clash of an epic battle-- the only slightly better-than-average debater, 9spaceking , versus one of the best debaters on the site, Raisor . I am almost certain that I will concede at some point of this debate, or at the very least get my butt kicked all the way to Pluto, but I wish to see more of how awesome The Lion King really is. Can the Lion King really beat my second favorite movie? Will I change my opinion? We will find this all out within this debate. Please wait at least one day to accept this debate, I am quite busy. Round one is for acceptance only. Good luck and I hope you have a magic carpet ride of a debate! :D And yes, I am aware there's a zombie judge there. I just put him there for fun and laughs. :P

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

1. The movie "Aladdin" is more humorous A more humorous movie is obviously more enjoyable than one that isn't. Aladdin has the amazing hilarious genie with excellent performance, with a gazillion references to other famous figures... And of course the parrot is really funny too, being "tortured" very often by the king, forced to eat terrible crackers. Even though there are only two funny characters, they both contribute to the humor in Aladdin, especially the genie, whose voice actor was applauded for. He got the award for Best Comedic Performance [1] as well as the Golden Globe Special Achievement Award. [2] This just shows how entertaining and funny Aladdin is. In contrast, while The Lion King does have two funny characters as well, they don't make a comedic appearance and neither do they help contribute much to how funny The Lion King was. The Lion King is a movie with very powerful emotions, possibly the most powerful emotions I have ever seen in any movie. However, the emotion of sadness is so strong. The death scene of Mufasa is what sets up The Lion King for its failure within entertaining us through humor, making the two sidekicks practically useless. As seen in [3], Mufasa is betrayed by his brother, Scar, and maliciously pushed off the cliff. What makes this scene so tragic is the fact that Mufasa helped Simba, regardless of how arrogant and prideful he was, and let him know that the kings will always be with him--in the stars. However, after Scar's manipulative plan and malicious backstabbing, now Simba thinks that he was the reason his father was killed! He does not realize that he didn't do it, not until the part in the movie where he was going to die!! This tragic event drags on and on all the way until the climax, which is merely 20 minutes from the end of the movie! The audience is not going to be happy if they know Simba was traumatized and depressed, thinking that he was the reason of his father's death, for years and years on afterwards!! This is so depressing, and the song Hakunana Matata does not help at all. Although little children may think it is a good thing that Simba is now released from his stress, and that it's actually funny somehow that he actually enjoys the gross-looking bugs, adults will instantly know it is meant to be an anti-moral, which doesn't help at all. These two side-characters are only helping Scar's plan by putting doubt in Simba's mind and making him think it doesn't matter; he doesn't have to go back and he won't go back. If it weren't for the wise monkey, Simba would have never gone back and Scar would have succeeded in his power-control of Pride Rock while slowly killing off his own henchmen and lion group. ...which leads us to my second point... 2. Aladdin's superior villain Both villains in both movies are manipulative. Malicious. Clever and not revealing unless needed to. Both are experts at liars. However, while Aladdin's villain thought everything through while making merely two mistakes in the whole entire movie, ( The monkey stealing his lamp, but we can't blame that he was taken by surprise; and his wish to become a genie, in which could be explained by his lack of knowledge that the Genie can't get out of the lamp even with all his power), The Lion King's Scar does not think his plans through. His subjects were all starving, asking to move, yet he was stubborn, laying in a wasteland and allowing even his henchmen to slowly starve down to death. What was he going to do anyways? We don't see him doing anything substancial in Pride Rock for all these years. It would have been the same with no ruler. On the other hand we see Jafar relaxing and taking his time, since he thinks Aladdin could not stop him--had it not been for the magical mat he would have succeded--and based on how well he hid his affiliation as a traitor, even fooling the emperor to think that he was his most trusted advisor--this just shows how smart Jafar is. His downfall was caused by many surprises--the combination of the magical mat and his greed for power impeded his way to victory. On the other hand if the lion group had fought against his henchmen, not only would he have no lion group left to serve him, his henchmen would be greatly harmed as well. He could not risk killing off everyone. He was taking a very hefty gamble; and all that was required to beat him and his henchmen was the addition of Simba and the two sidekicks. Just three creatures. I doubt the lack of these three would make a big difference, lions can fight just as well, if not better, than two sidekicks who lack fighting experience, and Simba, who gets beaten by a female!! 3. Aladdin's superior action scenes In The Lion King, we see only three action scenes--Simba and Nala being chased, Mufasa's death, and finally Scar's death. All these three action scenes simply cannot compare to Aladdin's action scenes. We see Aladdin's slyness and quickness displayed easily within the very first song, Street Rat, and the Genie's actions within his song Never Had a Friend Like Me is crazy, off-the-walls hilarious, and shows his power at the same time. Furthermore, Aladdin's quickness and adaptability is further displayed when the tower is about to fall on him and crush him to death--he quickly runs and ducks beneath the only gap of the tower, showing us how versatile he is and how he uses the environment to his advantage. Finally, the battle action is very tense and Aladdin's smartness comes out again as he thinks of his third and final wish, which leads to the weaknesses of having so much power as a genie--you're trapped in a lamp! All of thse action scenes develop character, mainly Aladdin of course, and show his personality greatly while making the movie more exciting. As a general rule, if a movie is more eye-catching, more people are going to watch it, and thus it is better. 4. Aladdin's superior love story The Lion King is simply unexplained. These two best buddies reconciliate after a long time, that's good--but all of a sudden they play that song... Can You Feel the Love Tonight? My answer: No. This is so random, why have you two suddenly dropped you thought that marrying each other is "ew" and that rolling around while being weird is okay? Seriously, Nala. You look creepy. In contrast, in Aladdin, the two can actually relate--Aladdin is trapped to his poor life, Jasmine trapped to her castle life and forced to marry a prince she doesn't necessarily want to marry...and Aladdin shows the outside world to Jasmine, with Jasmine gasping in astonishment at every scene... the Whole New World song is simply superb! [4] Much better than that weird "sex" scene. In conclusion, I have shown Aladdin superior to The Lion King. Onto you, con. [1] <URL>... [2] The youtube video [3] The 2cd youtube video [4] The 3rd youtube video <URL>...

9spaceking

1. The movie "Aladdin" is more humorous A more humorous movie is obviously more enjoyable than one that isn't. Aladdin has the amazing hilarious genie with excellent performance, with a gazillion references to other famous figures... And of course the parrot is really funny too, being "tortured" very often by the king, forced to eat terrible crackers. Even though there are only two funny characters, they both contribute to the humor in Aladdin, especially the genie, whose voice actor was applauded for. He got the award for Best Comedic Performance [1] as well as the Golden Globe Special Achievement Award. [2] This just shows how entertaining and funny Aladdin is. In contrast, while The Lion King does have two funny characters as well, they don't make a comedic appearance and neither do they help contribute much to how funny The Lion King was. The Lion King is a movie with very powerful emotions, possibly the most powerful emotions I have ever seen in any movie. However, the emotion of sadness is so strong. The death scene of Mufasa is what sets up The Lion King for its failure within entertaining us through humor, making the two sidekicks practically useless. As seen in [3], Mufasa is betrayed by his brother, Scar, and maliciously pushed off the cliff. What makes this scene so tragic is the fact that Mufasa helped Simba, regardless of how arrogant and prideful he was, and let him know that the kings will always be with him--in the stars. However, after Scar's manipulative plan and malicious backstabbing, now Simba thinks that he was the reason his father was killed! He does not realize that he didn't do it, not until the part in the movie where he was going to die!! This tragic event drags on and on all the way until the climax, which is merely 20 minutes from the end of the movie! The audience is not going to be happy if they know Simba was traumatized and depressed, thinking that he was the reason of his father's death, for years and years on afterwards!! This is so depressing, and the song Hakunana Matata does not help at all. Although little children may think it is a good thing that Simba is now released from his stress, and that it's actually funny somehow that he actually enjoys the gross-looking bugs, adults will instantly know it is meant to be an anti-moral, which doesn't help at all. These two side-characters are only helping Scar's plan by putting doubt in Simba's mind and making him think it doesn't matter; he doesn't have to go back and he won't go back. If it weren't for the wise monkey, Simba would have never gone back and Scar would have succeeded in his power-control of Pride Rock while slowly killing off his own henchmen and lion group. ...which leads us to my second point... 2. Aladdin's superior villain Both villains in both movies are manipulative. Malicious. Clever and not revealing unless needed to. Both are experts at liars. However, while Aladdin's villain thought everything through while making merely two mistakes in the whole entire movie, ( The monkey stealing his lamp, but we can't blame that he was taken by surprise; and his wish to become a genie, in which could be explained by his lack of knowledge that the Genie can't get out of the lamp even with all his power), The Lion King's Scar does not think his plans through. His subjects were all starving, asking to move, yet he was stubborn, laying in a wasteland and allowing even his henchmen to slowly starve down to death. What was he going to do anyways? We don't see him doing anything substancial in Pride Rock for all these years. It would have been the same with no ruler. On the other hand we see Jafar relaxing and taking his time, since he thinks Aladdin could not stop him--had it not been for the magical mat he would have succeded--and based on how well he hid his affiliation as a traitor, even fooling the emperor to think that he was his most trusted advisor--this just shows how smart Jafar is. His downfall was caused by many surprises--the combination of the magical mat and his greed for power impeded his way to victory. On the other hand if the lion group had fought against his henchmen, not only would he have no lion group left to serve him, his henchmen would be greatly harmed as well. He could not risk killing off everyone. He was taking a very hefty gamble; and all that was required to beat him and his henchmen was the addition of Simba and the two sidekicks. Just three creatures. I doubt the lack of these three would make a big difference, lions can fight just as well, if not better, than two sidekicks who lack fighting experience, and Simba, who gets beaten by a female!! 3. Aladdin's superior action scenes In The Lion King, we see only three action scenes--Simba and Nala being chased, Mufasa's death, and finally Scar's death. All these three action scenes simply cannot compare to Aladdin's action scenes. We see Aladdin's slyness and quickness displayed easily within the very first song, Street Rat, and the Genie's actions within his song Never Had a Friend Like Me is crazy, off-the-walls hilarious, and shows his power at the same time. Furthermore, Aladdin's quickness and adaptability is further displayed when the tower is about to fall on him and crush him to death--he quickly runs and ducks beneath the only gap of the tower, showing us how versatile he is and how he uses the environment to his advantage. Finally, the battle action is very tense and Aladdin's smartness comes out again as he thinks of his third and final wish, which leads to the weaknesses of having so much power as a genie--you're trapped in a lamp! All of thse action scenes develop character, mainly Aladdin of course, and show his personality greatly while making the movie more exciting. As a general rule, if a movie is more eye-catching, more people are going to watch it, and thus it is better. 4. Aladdin's superior love story The Lion King is simply unexplained. These two best buddies reconciliate after a long time, that's good--but all of a sudden they play that song... Can You Feel the Love Tonight? My answer: No. This is so random, why have you two suddenly dropped you thought that marrying each other is "ew" and that rolling around while being weird is okay? Seriously, Nala. You look creepy. In contrast, in Aladdin, the two can actually relate--Aladdin is trapped to his poor life, Jasmine trapped to her castle life and forced to marry a prince she doesn't necessarily want to marry...and Aladdin shows the outside world to Jasmine, with Jasmine gasping in astonishment at every scene... the Whole New World song is simply superb! [4] Much better than that weird "sex" scene. In conclusion, I have shown Aladdin superior to The Lion King. Onto you, con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] The youtube video [3] The 2cd youtube video [4] The 3rd youtube video https://www.youtube.com...

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

I knew Raisor wouldn't disappoint me. Very strong comeback. And with a deep nervous breath, Aladdin steps into the Cave of Wonders... 1. More complex characters and themes? We know so much about Mufasa. However this only makes the movie more sad and tragic. Pumba and his good friend can't save us from continually being sad and depressed throughout the movie, and we don't want to be depressed all the way until only 20 minutes from the end. Furthermore this much we can't say about Simba--his character really is superficial. He's arrogant. He's arrogant. He wants to be king. He just can't wait. He's scared. He runs away. He's carefree and dumb. He's dumb. He is weird with Nala. He then turns into Heroic Mode because his father says so. He's heroic. He's heroic. THE END. There's really not much to know about Simba; Confused Matthew had a reason to dislike him. As for Nala, you still don't explain the love scene. a) All the lessons and awesomeness This lesson is awesome, of course, and it shows him finally standing up to his evil uncle Scar, but it only helps decline the status of Pumba and his friend. Technically they were helping Scar all along with their lame dumb song "Hakuna Matata". On the other hand the lesson in Aladdin was not to be too greedy; shown in Aladdin's generosity when he gave the bread and helped out Jasmine even when he knew nothing about the princess, and the final battle scene. The Genie didn't need Aladdin to wish for his life to be saved; he did it because Aladdin was a good man; the Genie knew that Aladdin had it in his heart. This just shows how complex the relationship between the Genie and Aladdin are; they are almost father-and-son, living in harmony in a symbiotic relationship, even after Genie belonged to Jafar, Genie tries to NOT follow the villain's orders and even apologizes to Aladdin. As shown here although the lesson in The Lion King was good, it made the downfall of two important comedy side-characters, while in Aladdin in developed the relationship between the Genie and Aladdin, making you want these two characters. As for Jafar being boring, we see him NOT using his wizard powers and still getting what he wanted. He tricked Jasmine into thinking Aladdin was getting his head chopped off while lying very convincingly, while having another intention. He successfully predicted Aladdin's escape and disguised himself as a creepy old man. In fact, I didn't even realize it was Jafar until the parrot gave him away. These disguises and lies just show how developed Jafar is. Plus, my plan point still stands. (The one about Scar being a horrible thinker due to his inability to plan for the future efficiently) I accidentally ommited a part last round though, I meant to say that "Jafar is just taking his time executing his plan, knowing that Aladdin couldn't stop him". I didn't have enough space last round. 2. Intended moral themes not consistent with plot development? Jasmine is far too surprised to show anger. Besides, she got her slavery life saved, I'm sure that's enough for her forgiveness. As for the lies, Aladdin wanted to tell her the truth because he realized it was a cornerstone for a well-lived life; it would be immoral to lie even if he wasn't found out. Aladdin almost managed to told Jasmine the truth! 3. Character development =/= inconsistent motives a) Jasmine hasn't seen the world. It makes sense. Besides, the scenes are so beautiful...I nearly cried at them seeing them myself. b) Aladdin actually tries to admit to his lies; he tries to change, he knows it isn't right to not be himself. At the end, he chose to free the Genie as he promised instead of going back to being a prince--he learns his lesson! 4. Genie's comedy is overwhelming Genie may distract you from the plot a little bit, but it shows he cares about Aladdin. At first he goes wonky and tries to show off his powers like the arrogant Genie he is, but then later realizes this is not your average guy--he's a good guy, a "Diamond in a rough", and he tries to help him out. Furthermore, his display of powers only hints at what Jafar could do with his three wishes. After the magic carpet ride, Aladdin realizes that he wasn't really himself, and he's not satisfied, struggling to make the right decision, while the Genie states the true fact that Aladdin cannot depend on him forever; Aladdin is really not a prince! Aladdin then finally makes the right decision that being himself was the best thing to do, and Jasmine accepted him. Genie's comedy really isn't that overwhelming, it helps enhance the other parts of the movie, and reminds you of how awesome he is. Especially the ending. It's romanic and humorous, combining an "awwww" as well as a "hahaha!" This ending simply can't be beaten. The Lion King's ending had power, but Aladdin's ending had the perfect reminder of all the romance--the core love story--and the Genie's awesomeness/ silliness. Thus, if the rest of the arguments are tied, then I win because I proved thus far that the ending of Aladdin is more enjoyable than The Lion King. 5. Aladdin is racist Yeah, and The Lion King isn't racist. Here's what I see: white, black. White, black. White, black. White, black. Shall I continue? 6. Arbitrary and subjective Okay, let me point this out--if the Genie's comedy distracts you, certainly the death scene and the lack of revenge from Simba would depress you enough to distract you from the plot. Plus, I have just made two characters in The Lion King completely bogus. If The Lion King includes two practically useless characters, of course the producers did a better job in Aladdin. As for suprerior villain, you would definitely want to see a more developed and harder-to-beat villain. As for superior action scenes, this shows another way that Aladdin is better. Not only is its humor better, its romance better, its action is better. Action scenes are supposed to be exciting and seat-edge-grabbing. If Aladdin has better action-scenes, certainly more audiences would be wanting to watch it and be more nervous during these particular scenes. My opponent has dropped the love argument. Nala and Simba's scene does not improve the movie much, it is a flaw, a plot hole, a randomly unexplained sequence. The audience would question their love and be extremely confused about this scene, and this scene would draw away from the rest of the movie. Thus, Aladdin's love scene would be better since it does not draw away from the movie, develops characters further, and is very sweet. I have managed to still uphold my part of the resolution. I look forward to your rebuttals, Raisor.

9spaceking

I knew Raisor wouldn't disappoint me. Very strong comeback. And with a deep nervous breath, Aladdin steps into the Cave of Wonders... 1. More complex characters and themes? We know so much about Mufasa. However this only makes the movie more sad and tragic. Pumba and his good friend can't save us from continually being sad and depressed throughout the movie, and we don't want to be depressed all the way until only 20 minutes from the end. Furthermore this much we can't say about Simba--his character really is superficial. He's arrogant. He's arrogant. He wants to be king. He just can't wait. He's scared. He runs away. He's carefree and dumb. He's dumb. He is weird with Nala. He then turns into Heroic Mode because his father says so. He's heroic. He's heroic. THE END. There's really not much to know about Simba; Confused Matthew had a reason to dislike him. As for Nala, you still don't explain the love scene. a) All the lessons and awesomeness This lesson is awesome, of course, and it shows him finally standing up to his evil uncle Scar, but it only helps decline the status of Pumba and his friend. Technically they were helping Scar all along with their lame dumb song "Hakuna Matata". On the other hand the lesson in Aladdin was not to be too greedy; shown in Aladdin's generosity when he gave the bread and helped out Jasmine even when he knew nothing about the princess, and the final battle scene. The Genie didn't need Aladdin to wish for his life to be saved; he did it because Aladdin was a good man; the Genie knew that Aladdin had it in his heart. This just shows how complex the relationship between the Genie and Aladdin are; they are almost father-and-son, living in harmony in a symbiotic relationship, even after Genie belonged to Jafar, Genie tries to NOT follow the villain's orders and even apologizes to Aladdin. As shown here although the lesson in The Lion King was good, it made the downfall of two important comedy side-characters, while in Aladdin in developed the relationship between the Genie and Aladdin, making you want these two characters. As for Jafar being boring, we see him NOT using his wizard powers and still getting what he wanted. He tricked Jasmine into thinking Aladdin was getting his head chopped off while lying very convincingly, while having another intention. He successfully predicted Aladdin's escape and disguised himself as a creepy old man. In fact, I didn't even realize it was Jafar until the parrot gave him away. These disguises and lies just show how developed Jafar is. Plus, my plan point still stands. (The one about Scar being a horrible thinker due to his inability to plan for the future efficiently) I accidentally ommited a part last round though, I meant to say that "Jafar is just taking his time executing his plan, knowing that Aladdin couldn't stop him". I didn't have enough space last round. 2. Intended moral themes not consistent with plot development? Jasmine is far too surprised to show anger. Besides, she got her slavery life saved, I'm sure that's enough for her forgiveness. As for the lies, Aladdin wanted to tell her the truth because he realized it was a cornerstone for a well-lived life; it would be immoral to lie even if he wasn't found out. Aladdin almost managed to told Jasmine the truth! 3. Character development =/= inconsistent motives a) Jasmine hasn't seen the world. It makes sense. Besides, the scenes are so beautiful...I nearly cried at them seeing them myself. b) Aladdin actually tries to admit to his lies; he tries to change, he knows it isn't right to not be himself. At the end, he chose to free the Genie as he promised instead of going back to being a prince--he learns his lesson! 4. Genie's comedy is overwhelming Genie may distract you from the plot a little bit, but it shows he cares about Aladdin. At first he goes wonky and tries to show off his powers like the arrogant Genie he is, but then later realizes this is not your average guy--he's a good guy, a "Diamond in a rough", and he tries to help him out. Furthermore, his display of powers only hints at what Jafar could do with his three wishes. After the magic carpet ride, Aladdin realizes that he wasn't really himself, and he's not satisfied, struggling to make the right decision, while the Genie states the true fact that Aladdin cannot depend on him forever; Aladdin is really not a prince! Aladdin then finally makes the right decision that being himself was the best thing to do, and Jasmine accepted him. Genie's comedy really isn't that overwhelming, it helps enhance the other parts of the movie, and reminds you of how awesome he is. Especially the ending. It's romanic and humorous, combining an "awwww" as well as a "hahaha!" This ending simply can't be beaten. The Lion King's ending had power, but Aladdin's ending had the perfect reminder of all the romance--the core love story--and the Genie's awesomeness/ silliness. Thus, if the rest of the arguments are tied, then I win because I proved thus far that the ending of Aladdin is more enjoyable than The Lion King. 5. Aladdin is racist Yeah, and The Lion King isn't racist. Here's what I see: white, black. White, black. White, black. White, black. Shall I continue? 6. Arbitrary and subjective Okay, let me point this out--if the Genie's comedy distracts you, certainly the death scene and the lack of revenge from Simba would depress you enough to distract you from the plot. Plus, I have just made two characters in The Lion King completely bogus. If The Lion King includes two practically useless characters, of course the producers did a better job in Aladdin. As for suprerior villain, you would definitely want to see a more developed and harder-to-beat villain. As for superior action scenes, this shows another way that Aladdin is better. Not only is its humor better, its romance better, its action is better. Action scenes are supposed to be exciting and seat-edge-grabbing. If Aladdin has better action-scenes, certainly more audiences would be wanting to watch it and be more nervous during these particular scenes. My opponent has dropped the love argument. Nala and Simba's scene does not improve the movie much, it is a flaw, a plot hole, a randomly unexplained sequence. The audience would question their love and be extremely confused about this scene, and this scene would draw away from the rest of the movie. Thus, Aladdin's love scene would be better since it does not draw away from the movie, develops characters further, and is very sweet. I have managed to still uphold my part of the resolution. I look forward to your rebuttals, Raisor.

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

FINAL ROUND. My opponent and I may make new arguments since there are no rules against it. Does Genie really overshadow the movie? Genie was just causing up more ruckus for more tension in that specific balcony scene. Exciting=audience likes it more The Lion King being emotionally powerful--yeah, but it's hard to pay attention to the plot when the main character is so sad and oblivious to his evil uncle's plot, and Pumba with Timon only help Scar's malicious plan. Jafar transforming himself? We dont' exactly see him transforming using his base magic. All we know is that he can hypnotize people, and even that rather badly. As for Scar's bad governance, this shows he's dumb and isn't really that sly. I mean, all he has to do is move to a different area. He'll still have his control, and everyone will still have to listen to him. He's just a stubborn idiot. 3. Action scenes Mufasa's falling down is so sad it sets us up for inability to pay attention to any other moment of the movie. Up until the point that Mufasa actually communicates with Simba, we're left with ignorance by THE MAIN CHARACTER of this moment meant to be extremely emotional. Aladdin has many many action scenes, that combined together certainly beat up this scene that was simply dismissed by Simba. If kids care enough about Simba and agree with the song Hakuna Matata, then this tragic scene works towards nothing and no emotion is achieved. 1. Simba's character development? He just changes moods to the situation, he's really just the same lion he was before. He really doesn't learn anything. Aladdin's development? Aladdin chooses to lie a lot in the beginning, he lied to protect Jasmine, then continually lied to be smooth, and then hesitantly lied about being a disguised prince. Then he realizes that what he did wasn't really right and really attempts to tell Jasmine, but is distracted by that dumb parrot. He goes through a transformation and realizes that love really isn't worth telling a lie about his true self. If only Jasmine had been a tad bit slower, then Aladdin would have revealed his true self and shown a transformation. The fact is that Aladdin reveals half of his true self by showing that although his status was "trapped", he isn't psysically trapped due to the vast world outside. Aladdin is really a cool guy, he went through transformation throughout his song and during the morning, debating with himself until he finally made his decision to tell the truth. The audience understands that Aladdin really has changed throughout this whole ordeal and is ready to accept his true self and hope Jasmine loves the real Aladdin. 2. Jasmine being grateful? Keep in mind that Jasmine also almost died from falling into sand. Rescue from slavery, saved her life, willing to reveal his true self and attempt to gain forgiveness...this all makes sense that Jasmine would forgive Aladdin. No, I'm just trying to make a comparison...perhaps father-and-son is not quite right. The two really have a special relationship. The Genie could technically just make him an average prince, but he choose to make him a prince so grand even the sultan hadn't seen a bigger parade. 3. Character analysis of Jasmine? Jasmine is intrigued by the way Aladdin is smart, not falling for her flirtations. Jasmine also experienced a Deja Vu with his "do you trust me?" as well as his trick with the apple. Jasmine logically came to the conclusion that Aladdin was Prince Ali, and she was correct. Jasmine then loves him because Aladdin shows a good heart by helping her get out of a tough situation and understanding that "people should be able to make their own choices". Aladdin's moral realization--I have mentioned this in my rebuttal to point one. See above. Genie's pop culture references--Oh God come on....A good explanation is that the Genie knows the past but cannot predict the future. Genie acted pretty surprised when Aladdin wished him out, thus, Genie probably cannot predict the future, unless of course the owner wishes for it. Genie functioning as the voice of reason--this adds more complication, and puts the burden on Aladdin to ultimately decide. This is not something for the Genie to decide, it isa choice reserved for Aladdin. The ending of Lion King--dangit, I was worried you'd mention the beginning. I have to concede this point, because The Lion King's beginning is simply too darn of a masterpiece. Therefore if the rest of arguments tied, then you win the debate. :/ 5. Light/dark meaning good/evil: exactly, Jafar is dark and Aladdin is light. Besides, this point is irrelevant to the debate. I only answered it for fun. As for the opening song changed, I'm glad it changed, but again it's not relevant to the debate. 6. Timon and Pumbaa saving Simba's life--and they also ruined and wasted a few years of it. Finally, the artistic goals--I have explained Aladdin's transformation and showing that honesty is truly important. As for The Lion King, Simba really grows into a strange lion. He was persuaded only by his father, and his father was being super ambiguous and never telling him that Scar killed him. I mean, couldn't have there been at least one point in these years where Simba was alone so that his father could tell him the important information? There's also another plot hole. After Mufasa dies, Scar tells the story that both Mufasa and Simba died in the stampede, but Simba appears alive and well later. Does not one lion remember that the two stories completely go against each other? Do they have terrible memory or something else? In addition, if this worked with logic, the real conversation would work like this: "Simba, admit you're the reason of your father's death!" "Wait didn't you say the stampede was the reason of Mufasa's death?" "Yes, but Simba was there during the stampede" "How do you know he was there? Why was he there in the first place?" "Uhhhhh....I told him to play and he went to that rock." "No...You told me to practice my roaring!!" "Uhhhhhhh....what non-sense. This child is crazy." "THAT's non-sense. GET HIM!!!!" Plot holes make people wonder what happened in the movie and go away from the movie, making the movie bad. Thus, such plot holes ruin a movie like The Lion King, where logic is very important to display the morals and whether or not Simba really needed to go through so much pain. Finally, the monkey does not necessarily help. He is a useless character in reality. You could skip his part and go to Simba seeing his father in the clouds, and it would still make sense. IN CONCLUSION You may have convinced the voters/judges, but you have not convinced me. However, I did get a new perspective at my 2cd favorite movie as well as The Lion King. I believe I have shown enough evidence that Aladdin's moral was thoroughly displayed, while The Lion King has many plot holes that deviate from the movie and make certain parts unbelievable or completely mess them up. This was a tough, tough debate, but a good debate nevertheless. VOTE ME.

9spaceking

FINAL ROUND. My opponent and I may make new arguments since there are no rules against it. Does Genie really overshadow the movie? Genie was just causing up more ruckus for more tension in that specific balcony scene. Exciting=audience likes it more The Lion King being emotionally powerful--yeah, but it's hard to pay attention to the plot when the main character is so sad and oblivious to his evil uncle's plot, and Pumba with Timon only help Scar's malicious plan. Jafar transforming himself? We dont' exactly see him transforming using his base magic. All we know is that he can hypnotize people, and even that rather badly. As for Scar's bad governance, this shows he's dumb and isn't really that sly. I mean, all he has to do is move to a different area. He'll still have his control, and everyone will still have to listen to him. He's just a stubborn idiot. 3. Action scenes Mufasa's falling down is so sad it sets us up for inability to pay attention to any other moment of the movie. Up until the point that Mufasa actually communicates with Simba, we're left with ignorance by THE MAIN CHARACTER of this moment meant to be extremely emotional. Aladdin has many many action scenes, that combined together certainly beat up this scene that was simply dismissed by Simba. If kids care enough about Simba and agree with the song Hakuna Matata, then this tragic scene works towards nothing and no emotion is achieved. 1. Simba's character development? He just changes moods to the situation, he's really just the same lion he was before. He really doesn't learn anything. Aladdin's development? Aladdin chooses to lie a lot in the beginning, he lied to protect Jasmine, then continually lied to be smooth, and then hesitantly lied about being a disguised prince. Then he realizes that what he did wasn't really right and really attempts to tell Jasmine, but is distracted by that dumb parrot. He goes through a transformation and realizes that love really isn't worth telling a lie about his true self. If only Jasmine had been a tad bit slower, then Aladdin would have revealed his true self and shown a transformation. The fact is that Aladdin reveals half of his true self by showing that although his status was "trapped", he isn't psysically trapped due to the vast world outside. Aladdin is really a cool guy, he went through transformation throughout his song and during the morning, debating with himself until he finally made his decision to tell the truth. The audience understands that Aladdin really has changed throughout this whole ordeal and is ready to accept his true self and hope Jasmine loves the real Aladdin. 2. Jasmine being grateful? Keep in mind that Jasmine also almost died from falling into sand. Rescue from slavery, saved her life, willing to reveal his true self and attempt to gain forgiveness...this all makes sense that Jasmine would forgive Aladdin. No, I'm just trying to make a comparison...perhaps father-and-son is not quite right. The two really have a special relationship. The Genie could technically just make him an average prince, but he choose to make him a prince so grand even the sultan hadn't seen a bigger parade. 3. Character analysis of Jasmine? Jasmine is intrigued by the way Aladdin is smart, not falling for her flirtations. Jasmine also experienced a Deja Vu with his "do you trust me?" as well as his trick with the apple. Jasmine logically came to the conclusion that Aladdin was Prince Ali, and she was correct. Jasmine then loves him because Aladdin shows a good heart by helping her get out of a tough situation and understanding that "people should be able to make their own choices". Aladdin's moral realization--I have mentioned this in my rebuttal to point one. See above. Genie's pop culture references--Oh God come on....A good explanation is that the Genie knows the past but cannot predict the future. Genie acted pretty surprised when Aladdin wished him out, thus, Genie probably cannot predict the future, unless of course the owner wishes for it. Genie functioning as the voice of reason--this adds more complication, and puts the burden on Aladdin to ultimately decide. This is not something for the Genie to decide, it isa choice reserved for Aladdin. The ending of Lion King--dangit, I was worried you'd mention the beginning. I have to concede this point, because The Lion King's beginning is simply too darn of a masterpiece. Therefore if the rest of arguments tied, then you win the debate. :/ 5. Light/dark meaning good/evil: exactly, Jafar is dark and Aladdin is light. Besides, this point is irrelevant to the debate. I only answered it for fun. As for the opening song changed, I'm glad it changed, but again it's not relevant to the debate. 6. Timon and Pumbaa saving Simba's life--and they also ruined and wasted a few years of it. Finally, the artistic goals--I have explained Aladdin's transformation and showing that honesty is truly important. As for The Lion King, Simba really grows into a strange lion. He was persuaded only by his father, and his father was being super ambiguous and never telling him that Scar killed him. I mean, couldn't have there been at least one point in these years where Simba was alone so that his father could tell him the important information? There's also another plot hole. After Mufasa dies, Scar tells the story that both Mufasa and Simba died in the stampede, but Simba appears alive and well later. Does not one lion remember that the two stories completely go against each other? Do they have terrible memory or something else? In addition, if this worked with logic, the real conversation would work like this: "Simba, admit you're the reason of your father's death!" "Wait didn't you say the stampede was the reason of Mufasa's death?" "Yes, but Simba was there during the stampede" "How do you know he was there? Why was he there in the first place?" "Uhhhhh....I told him to play and he went to that rock." "No...You told me to practice my roaring!!" "Uhhhhhhh....what non-sense. This child is crazy." "THAT's non-sense. GET HIM!!!!" Plot holes make people wonder what happened in the movie and go away from the movie, making the movie bad. Thus, such plot holes ruin a movie like The Lion King, where logic is very important to display the morals and whether or not Simba really needed to go through so much pain. Finally, the monkey does not necessarily help. He is a useless character in reality. You could skip his part and go to Simba seeing his father in the clouds, and it would still make sense. IN CONCLUSION You may have convinced the voters/judges, but you have not convinced me. However, I did get a new perspective at my 2cd favorite movie as well as The Lion King. I believe I have shown enough evidence that Aladdin's moral was thoroughly displayed, while The Lion King has many plot holes that deviate from the movie and make certain parts unbelievable or completely mess them up. This was a tough, tough debate, but a good debate nevertheless. VOTE ME.

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

I accept. Shared BOP.

Raisor

I accept. Shared BOP.

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

Framework: Determining which film is "superior" requires an interpretive framework for evaluating the comparative quality of movies. I advocate a holistic framework to evaluate the quality of films: we should judge by 1) how well the artistic choices serve the artistic goals of the film and 2) the value of said artistic goals. This framework considers all aspects of the film without imposing arbitrary judgments. If neither movie is superior, Con should win- this position would negate the Resolution. 1. Lion King has more complex characters and themes, resulting in a more compelling narrative. Most movies rely on flat characters that primarily act in whatever way the plot requires. One of the most striking features of the Lion King is how all the characters act as unique individuals to create a story rather than drive one. a) Parental relationships are central to both Aladdin and the Lion King. Mufasa is a fleshed out individual with strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, the Sultan is largely a boob manipulated by Aladdin and Jafaar and exists largely as an object for plot development. b) Nala shows the audience the contrast between how Simba was raised and what he has become. When first finds Simba as an adult, she is ecstatic over being reunited with a close friend. After talking with Simba and discovering his abdication of responsibility, she becomes disgusted with him. Even in brief segments of dialogue, Nala reveals that she is a strong-willed individual striving to save her home. This is in stark contrast to Jasmine, as I will describe below. c) Simba's decision to return to his kingdom exhibits the narrative and moral depth of the Lion King. Simba attempts to run from his past by fleeing the Pride Lands. Eventually he is confronted by Nala and the news that his kingdom is nearly destroyed. The cliche would be for Simba to realize he must save his kingdom, but instead Simba again turns his back on his responsibility. Simba is then enticed to follow Rafiki and is shown a vision of his father. This critical moment of character development is cinematic poetry layered with meaning. Simba realizes he can never run from his past because his identity is inseparable from his life experiences. The only way to be true to himself is to own responsibility for the "murder" of his father; he must honor his father by living up to his father's values. This scene is incredibly rich- all the preceding events of the film collide to develop into a major character development. Simba's decision to return to Pride Rock is organic yet radical and momentous. d) Jafaar is a boring villain- he's just an evil magician that uses his wizard powers to get what he wants. Scar is a rounded character. He manipulates people using trust and concepts of family obligation. Scar must work around being physically weaker than Simba and Mufasa by using cunning. This gives the conflict in the Lion King more texture than the straight-forward battles of Aladdin. 2. The intended moral themes of Aladdin are not consistent with the plot development. A major theme in Aladdin is honesty and being true to yourself. But this theme is totally undermined. Aladdin consistently ignores the Genie's advice to be honest and flies to Jasmine's balcony. Jasmine tells Aladdin to leave because she isn't into cocky show offs. Aladdin shows off his cool rich guy magic carpet. Jasmine is suddenly super into Aladdin. Aladdin's big "in" with Jasmine is precisely his fakeness- his cool magic stuff. This scene is the equivalent of a guy picking up a girl by offering a ride in his Aston Martin. When Jasmine realizes Aladdin LIED about not being the boy from the market, Aladdin LIES AGAIN saying he's a prince but pretends to be poor. Jasmine forgives him immediately. Aladdin is finally revealed as a liar by Jafaar but Jasmine is unfazed. There are NO consequences to Aladdin's lies; Jasmine isn't even a little angry about being lied to TWICE. Despite the movie's insistence that lying isn't how you win over a princess, it works out pretty much perfectly for Aladdin. 3. Aladdin lacks character development and characters act with inconsistent motives. a) Jasmine is supposed to be an independent-minded princess that insists on being treated as someone capable of making her own decisions and uninterested in hotshot rich boys but she has no problem with Aladdin repeatedly lying to her and is totally into Aladdin's hotshot flying carpet. b) Aladdin is supposed to be a "diamond in the rough." Yet he consistently proves himself to be an untrustworthy liar, even threatening to renege on his promise to free the Genie when he realizes he needs his power to keep up his lies. We see very little character growth in Aladdin- he never actually admits to his lies, Jafaar outs him as a liar by force. The character arc of Aladdin is at best superficial and at worst incoherent. 4. The Genie's comedy overwhelms the film. a) Robin Williams is like garlic: in the right proportion it makes any food taste amazing, but adding too much overwhelms the dish and drowns out the other flavors. The Genie is almost divorced from the story- the character is just Robin Williams riffing on pop culture and making funny voices. His jokes in many scenes are jarring- for example in the balcony scene there are sudden cuts from Aladdin and Jasmine to the Genie making random jokes as a bee. Genie literally exists in this scene as a distraction from the plot. <URL>... Furthermore, the Genie's ability to break the fourth wall and make modern pop culture references has led to widespread fan theories trying to explain this bizarre incongruity with the rest of Aladdin. People have speculated that the Genie exists outside of time and space, thus allowing him to have pop culture knowledge of the future. Others have suggested that Aladdin is in fact post-apocalyptic, that the Genie knows about Jack Nicholson because Aladdin is set 10,000 years in the future. 5. Aladdin is a little bit racist Despite the Arabian setting, Aladdin speaks like a good old boy from Gary Indiana while Jafaar is a caricature of and Arabian villain- his skin is darker, his eyes have a pronounced almond shape (compare to Aladdin's round eyes), and he speaks with a notable accent. Jafaar's ethnicity is seemingly used as shorthand for his moral character. Additionally, the Jafaar's power comes from mysterious eastern magic. 6. Pro's arguments are arbitrary and subjective- he just points out differences between movies without explaining why they make one movie better or worse. Aladdin is at heart a love story so of course the romance is more developed. The inclusion of more humor is an artistic choice- it doesn't inherently make a film better or worse. I have argued that the humor in Aladdin is often distracting. Pro needs to explain why the differences he points out make Aladdin better- Transformers has better action scenes than the Shawshank redemption, does that make Transformers a better movie?

Raisor

Framework: Determining which film is “superior” requires an interpretive framework for evaluating the comparative quality of movies. I advocate a holistic framework to evaluate the quality of films: we should judge by 1) how well the artistic choices serve the artistic goals of the film and 2) the value of said artistic goals. This framework considers all aspects of the film without imposing arbitrary judgments. If neither movie is superior, Con should win- this position would negate the Resolution. 1. Lion King has more complex characters and themes, resulting in a more compelling narrative. Most movies rely on flat characters that primarily act in whatever way the plot requires. One of the most striking features of the Lion King is how all the characters act as unique individuals to create a story rather than drive one. a) Parental relationships are central to both Aladdin and the Lion King. Mufasa is a fleshed out individual with strengths and weaknesses. In contrast, the Sultan is largely a boob manipulated by Aladdin and Jafaar and exists largely as an object for plot development. b) Nala shows the audience the contrast between how Simba was raised and what he has become. When first finds Simba as an adult, she is ecstatic over being reunited with a close friend. After talking with Simba and discovering his abdication of responsibility, she becomes disgusted with him. Even in brief segments of dialogue, Nala reveals that she is a strong-willed individual striving to save her home. This is in stark contrast to Jasmine, as I will describe below. c) Simba’s decision to return to his kingdom exhibits the narrative and moral depth of the Lion King. Simba attempts to run from his past by fleeing the Pride Lands. Eventually he is confronted by Nala and the news that his kingdom is nearly destroyed. The cliché would be for Simba to realize he must save his kingdom, but instead Simba again turns his back on his responsibility. Simba is then enticed to follow Rafiki and is shown a vision of his father. This critical moment of character development is cinematic poetry layered with meaning. Simba realizes he can never run from his past because his identity is inseparable from his life experiences. The only way to be true to himself is to own responsibility for the “murder” of his father; he must honor his father by living up to his father’s values. This scene is incredibly rich- all the preceding events of the film collide to develop into a major character development. Simba’s decision to return to Pride Rock is organic yet radical and momentous. d) Jafaar is a boring villain- he’s just an evil magician that uses his wizard powers to get what he wants. Scar is a rounded character. He manipulates people using trust and concepts of family obligation. Scar must work around being physically weaker than Simba and Mufasa by using cunning. This gives the conflict in the Lion King more texture than the straight-forward battles of Aladdin. 2. The intended moral themes of Aladdin are not consistent with the plot development. A major theme in Aladdin is honesty and being true to yourself. But this theme is totally undermined. Aladdin consistently ignores the Genie’s advice to be honest and flies to Jasmine’s balcony. Jasmine tells Aladdin to leave because she isn’t into cocky show offs. Aladdin shows off his cool rich guy magic carpet. Jasmine is suddenly super into Aladdin. Aladdin’s big “in” with Jasmine is precisely his fakeness- his cool magic stuff. This scene is the equivalent of a guy picking up a girl by offering a ride in his Aston Martin. When Jasmine realizes Aladdin LIED about not being the boy from the market, Aladdin LIES AGAIN saying he’s a prince but pretends to be poor. Jasmine forgives him immediately. Aladdin is finally revealed as a liar by Jafaar but Jasmine is unfazed. There are NO consequences to Aladdin’s lies; Jasmine isn’t even a little angry about being lied to TWICE. Despite the movie’s insistence that lying isn’t how you win over a princess, it works out pretty much perfectly for Aladdin. 3. Aladdin lacks character development and characters act with inconsistent motives. a) Jasmine is supposed to be an independent-minded princess that insists on being treated as someone capable of making her own decisions and uninterested in hotshot rich boys but she has no problem with Aladdin repeatedly lying to her and is totally into Aladdin’s hotshot flying carpet. b) Aladdin is supposed to be a “diamond in the rough.” Yet he consistently proves himself to be an untrustworthy liar, even threatening to renege on his promise to free the Genie when he realizes he needs his power to keep up his lies. We see very little character growth in Aladdin- he never actually admits to his lies, Jafaar outs him as a liar by force. The character arc of Aladdin is at best superficial and at worst incoherent. 4. The Genie’s comedy overwhelms the film. a) Robin Williams is like garlic: in the right proportion it makes any food taste amazing, but adding too much overwhelms the dish and drowns out the other flavors. The Genie is almost divorced from the story- the character is just Robin Williams riffing on pop culture and making funny voices. His jokes in many scenes are jarring- for example in the balcony scene there are sudden cuts from Aladdin and Jasmine to the Genie making random jokes as a bee. Genie literally exists in this scene as a distraction from the plot. https://www.youtube.com... Furthermore, the Genie’s ability to break the fourth wall and make modern pop culture references has led to widespread fan theories trying to explain this bizarre incongruity with the rest of Aladdin. People have speculated that the Genie exists outside of time and space, thus allowing him to have pop culture knowledge of the future. Others have suggested that Aladdin is in fact post-apocalyptic, that the Genie knows about Jack Nicholson because Aladdin is set 10,000 years in the future. 5. Aladdin is a little bit racist Despite the Arabian setting, Aladdin speaks like a good old boy from Gary Indiana while Jafaar is a caricature of and Arabian villain- his skin is darker, his eyes have a pronounced almond shape (compare to Aladdin’s round eyes), and he speaks with a notable accent. Jafaar’s ethnicity is seemingly used as shorthand for his moral character. Additionally, the Jafaar’s power comes from mysterious eastern magic. 6. Pro’s arguments are arbitrary and subjective- he just points out differences between movies without explaining why they make one movie better or worse. Aladdin is at heart a love story so of course the romance is more developed. The inclusion of more humor is an artistic choice- it doesn’t inherently make a film better or worse. I have argued that the humor in Aladdin is often distracting. Pro needs to explain why the differences he points out make Aladdin better- Transformers has better action scenes than the Shawshank redemption, does that make Transformers a better movie?

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

Pro's case: 1) I readily concede that Aladdin spends a lot more time on comedy- this is an artistic choice, and we must answer the question of whether this decision enhances or diminishes each respective film. I have already made the case that the focus Genie's humor distracts from the rest of Aladdin. I don't dispute that Robin Williams had an excellent performance- he deserved those awards. My argument was that the performance overshadowed the rest of the movie- the balcony scene shows how the Genie interjects with tonally incongruous jokes during the middle of important character development scenes. The Lion King contains plenty of humor- Timon and Pumbaa, as well as Zazu and hyenas are well remembered for their comedic support. The humor in the Lion King supports the plot rather than overshadows it- Pumbaa's joke about stars as balls of gas actually facilitates character development during the star gazing scene Finally, Pro's argument seems to be "The Lion King is too emotionally powerful." This is the mark of Lion King's superiority- the movie strives to resonate emotionally and it excels in this respect. Pro's characterization is incorrect though- Simba is not depressed throughout the film. Simba exhibits a range of emotions at different stages in his life because he is a complex character. 2) Jafaar is a straightforward villain, while Scar exists within a complex emotional relationship between Simba and Mufasa. It isn't hard for Jafaar to trick people when he can literally transform himself. Scar must use subtle emotional manipulation to control Simba and the Lion Pride. Scar's failure as a ruler does not diminish his character, it only develops another theme- the relationship between moral responsibility and governance. These themes flow from the arc of the story and feed into character development. Mufasa and Simba are motivated to rule by a sense of justice and love of the balance of the kingdom. Scar wants only power and operates by cronyism. Bad governance by Scar results in mismanagement of resources and suffering in his kingdom, while good governance by Mufasa and Simba results in prosperity. Governance and power in Aladdin are mere tokens of who is "winning" in the film. The only reason we care that Jafaar becomes Sultan is because he's the bad guy and we don't want the bad guy to win. 3) First, Aladdin's action scenes are not superior. Mufasa's death is visually compelling- from the antelope stampeding down the cliff to Mufasa's final fall. This is one of the most iconic scenes in Disney canon and outshines any scene in Aladdin. Second, neither movie is an action movie. Action scenes support the plot and color the film with excitement but do not define the film. This is a low-priority issue when evaluating a Disney movie. The Lion King contained more than enough action to keep the story gripping and exciting. 4) As much as I appreciate the imabench homage, I simply disagree that the love scene is creepy. "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" is a certified U.S. Gold song, so clearly a lot of people enjoyed the scene. The love story is a side plot in the Lion King, even if it stumbles it does not detract from the movie as a whole. Pro is trying to hang his hat on one scene- compare that to the massive structural problems I have pointed out in Aladdin. Con Case: 1. Pro argues the Simba is superficial by citing that Simba does the following: he goes from being arrogant, to being scared and running, to being carefree and dumb, then finally emerges heroic. That's a huge range of character development, I really don't see how that proves Simba superficial. In contrast Aladdin is a liar until the very end of the movie when he suddenly decides to be a stand-up guy. Fascinating. In the Lion King we see Simba struggle to make heroic decisions- it take Nala, Rafiki, and his father's ghost to bring him to his moral awakening. Aladdin undergoes none of this development, deciding to free Genie seemingly on a whim. Even Genie doesn't understand why Aladdin doesn't continue being selfish at the end. Pro's analysis is fluff. Nothing about Aladdin suggests a father/son relationship between the Genie and Aladdin- Aladdin OWNS Genie. 2. Pro's argument is basically "Jasmine was so grateful for being freed from slavery that she overlooked Aladdin's chronic lying." What a great lesson! Girls, all men will be awful to you so just be grateful when one is slightly less terrible than the other. Aladdin has no realization about honesty- what actually happens is all his friends are mad at him for being a liar, so he decides he should tell Jasmine the truth. Note he doesn't actually do so, nor does he decide to immediately free the Genie as he promised. This scene, supposedly a major moral turning point, is underwhelming and forgettable. 3. Pro doesn't address my character analysis of Jasmine. He just says she's impressed by seeing the world. But this doesn't change the fact that Jasmine was uninterested in Aladdin until he started showing off his sweet ride. Jasmine wants people to respect her and claims not to like show-offs, but is impressed by a show-off liar. In contrast, Nala demonstrates integrity when she is outraged by Simba's disavowal of responsibility. Cross apply my analysis about Aladdin's moral realization being underwhelming at best. 4. Pro concedes that Genie is at least marginally distracting. Genie barely functions as the voice of reason. He tells Aladdin to be honest but he also tells Aladdin to be happy once Jasmine has believed the lies: "You've just won the heart of the princess! What are you gonna do next?" Pro also ignores the troubling implications of Genie's pop culture references. If the Genie lives outside of space and time, why couldn't he use his knowledge to better help Aladdin and stop Jafaar from rising to power? Does the Genie not care? Are the actions of mortals like the actions of ants- just events for him to bounce jokes off of? Aladdin's ending is blase. The ending of the Lion King shows Rafiki holding up Simba's son- visual poetry echoing the start of the movie and the concept of the Circle of Life. Aladdin doesn't compare. 5. Light/dark are common symbols for good/evil. A black mane doesn't say anything about race. Jafaar is overtly Arabic while Aladdin is almost white. The opening song to Aladdin had to be changed due to accusations of racism- the lyric " Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face" was changed for implying Arabic societies were barbaric. 6. Timon and Pumbaa aren't useless. Not only do they save Simba's life, they serve as a philosophical contrast to Mufasa. Pro doesn't explain how his arguments relate to the artistic goals of each film. The Lion King isn't trying to be a love story, the romance is a tertiary plot point meant to show that Simba is growing up. Thus it isn't a serious flaw if the scene doesn't quite connect. In contrast, Aladdin is trying to show the importance of honesty, so it is a serious flaw if it fails to do so.

Raisor

Pro’s case: 1) I readily concede that Aladdin spends a lot more time on comedy- this is an artistic choice, and we must answer the question of whether this decision enhances or diminishes each respective film. I have already made the case that the focus Genie’s humor distracts from the rest of Aladdin. I don’t dispute that Robin Williams had an excellent performance- he deserved those awards. My argument was that the performance overshadowed the rest of the movie- the balcony scene shows how the Genie interjects with tonally incongruous jokes during the middle of important character development scenes. The Lion King contains plenty of humor- Timon and Pumbaa, as well as Zazu and hyenas are well remembered for their comedic support. The humor in the Lion King supports the plot rather than overshadows it- Pumbaa’s joke about stars as balls of gas actually facilitates character development during the star gazing scene Finally, Pro’s argument seems to be “The Lion King is too emotionally powerful.” This is the mark of Lion King’s superiority- the movie strives to resonate emotionally and it excels in this respect. Pro’s characterization is incorrect though- Simba is not depressed throughout the film. Simba exhibits a range of emotions at different stages in his life because he is a complex character. 2) Jafaar is a straightforward villain, while Scar exists within a complex emotional relationship between Simba and Mufasa. It isn’t hard for Jafaar to trick people when he can literally transform himself. Scar must use subtle emotional manipulation to control Simba and the Lion Pride. Scar’s failure as a ruler does not diminish his character, it only develops another theme- the relationship between moral responsibility and governance. These themes flow from the arc of the story and feed into character development. Mufasa and Simba are motivated to rule by a sense of justice and love of the balance of the kingdom. Scar wants only power and operates by cronyism. Bad governance by Scar results in mismanagement of resources and suffering in his kingdom, while good governance by Mufasa and Simba results in prosperity. Governance and power in Aladdin are mere tokens of who is “winning” in the film. The only reason we care that Jafaar becomes Sultan is because he’s the bad guy and we don’t want the bad guy to win. 3) First, Aladdin’s action scenes are not superior. Mufasa’s death is visually compelling- from the antelope stampeding down the cliff to Mufasa’s final fall. This is one of the most iconic scenes in Disney canon and outshines any scene in Aladdin. Second, neither movie is an action movie. Action scenes support the plot and color the film with excitement but do not define the film. This is a low-priority issue when evaluating a Disney movie. The Lion King contained more than enough action to keep the story gripping and exciting. 4) As much as I appreciate the imabench homage, I simply disagree that the love scene is creepy. “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is a certified U.S. Gold song, so clearly a lot of people enjoyed the scene. The love story is a side plot in the Lion King, even if it stumbles it does not detract from the movie as a whole. Pro is trying to hang his hat on one scene- compare that to the massive structural problems I have pointed out in Aladdin. Con Case: 1. Pro argues the Simba is superficial by citing that Simba does the following: he goes from being arrogant, to being scared and running, to being carefree and dumb, then finally emerges heroic. That’s a huge range of character development, I really don’t see how that proves Simba superficial. In contrast Aladdin is a liar until the very end of the movie when he suddenly decides to be a stand-up guy. Fascinating. In the Lion King we see Simba struggle to make heroic decisions- it take Nala, Rafiki, and his father’s ghost to bring him to his moral awakening. Aladdin undergoes none of this development, deciding to free Genie seemingly on a whim. Even Genie doesn’t understand why Aladdin doesn’t continue being selfish at the end. Pro’s analysis is fluff. Nothing about Aladdin suggests a father/son relationship between the Genie and Aladdin- Aladdin OWNS Genie. 2. Pro’s argument is basically “Jasmine was so grateful for being freed from slavery that she overlooked Aladdin’s chronic lying.” What a great lesson! Girls, all men will be awful to you so just be grateful when one is slightly less terrible than the other. Aladdin has no realization about honesty- what actually happens is all his friends are mad at him for being a liar, so he decides he should tell Jasmine the truth. Note he doesn’t actually do so, nor does he decide to immediately free the Genie as he promised. This scene, supposedly a major moral turning point, is underwhelming and forgettable. 3. Pro doesn’t address my character analysis of Jasmine. He just says she’s impressed by seeing the world. But this doesn’t change the fact that Jasmine was uninterested in Aladdin until he started showing off his sweet ride. Jasmine wants people to respect her and claims not to like show-offs, but is impressed by a show-off liar. In contrast, Nala demonstrates integrity when she is outraged by Simba's disavowal of responsibility. Cross apply my analysis about Aladdin’s moral realization being underwhelming at best. 4. Pro concedes that Genie is at least marginally distracting. Genie barely functions as the voice of reason. He tells Aladdin to be honest but he also tells Aladdin to be happy once Jasmine has believed the lies: “You’ve just won the heart of the princess! What are you gonna do next?” Pro also ignores the troubling implications of Genie’s pop culture references. If the Genie lives outside of space and time, why couldn’t he use his knowledge to better help Aladdin and stop Jafaar from rising to power? Does the Genie not care? Are the actions of mortals like the actions of ants- just events for him to bounce jokes off of? Aladdin’s ending is blasé. The ending of the Lion King shows Rafiki holding up Simba’s son- visual poetry echoing the start of the movie and the concept of the Circle of Life. Aladdin doesn’t compare. 5. Light/dark are common symbols for good/evil. A black mane doesn’t say anything about race. Jafaar is overtly Arabic while Aladdin is almost white. The opening song to Aladdin had to be changed due to accusations of racism- the lyric “ Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face” was changed for implying Arabic societies were barbaric. 6. Timon and Pumbaa aren’t useless. Not only do they save Simba’s life, they serve as a philosophical contrast to Mufasa. Pro doesn’t explain how his arguments relate to the artistic goals of each film. The Lion King isn’t trying to be a love story, the romance is a tertiary plot point meant to show that Simba is growing up. Thus it isn’t a serious flaw if the scene doesn’t quite connect. In contrast, Aladdin is trying to show the importance of honesty, so it is a serious flaw if it fails to do so.

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

First I will give an overview of why I have won this debate, and then I will briefly address some of Pro's R4 arguments. Why I have won: In this debate, both sides have made a lot of arguments about diverse aspects of the Aladdin and The Lion King. What the judges need is some way to compare all these arguments and determine which are the most important. For this we can look to the Framework I provided in R1- we should decide which movie is superior based on which movie better achieved its artistic goals. The standard of evaluating the Resolution was never disputed by Pro. The bulk of Pro's arguments can be dismissed as un-compelling under this Framework- Pro mostly just points out differences between the two movies and arbitrarily claims that whatever Aladdin did differently is better. For example, Pro claims Aladdin has more action scenes and so is better. Since neither the Lion King nor Aladdin has the artistic goal of being action-packed, number of action scenes is a bad metric to evaluate the Resolution. My arguments have largely centered on how well each film fulfills its artistic goals. I talk about how Jasmine's actions undermine the type of role model she is meant to be, how the plot fails to bear out the stated moral that lying is bad, and how the Genie throws the movie off balance. My arguments evaluate Aladdin by the artistic standard it sets for itself; I am not applying an arbitrary metric like "The Lion King is sadder and therefore better." The upshot of this is that if I won all my main arguments AND Pro won all his main arguments, I would win this debate because my main arguments better speak to the Resolution. It may well be true that Jafaar is a better villain (it isn't) but the Lion King isn't trying to win a "Best villain" competition. At the same, it is a major fault if Aladdin fails to show that lying is wrong, since Aladdin IS trying to be a story about the importance of honesty. Line-by-line Rebuttal: -Genie digresses into weird pop-culture impressions and has spawned fan theories that Aladdin is post-apocalyptic - that's the definition of overshadowing the rest of the movie. -Pro just proves my point that Jafaar is a flat character that does whatever he wants because he's magic; most of his success comes from his ability to hypnotize people. -Pro's claims that Scar could move are totally irrelevant; the degradation of the Pride lands was an intentional artistic choice to illustrate why bad people make bad rulers. -Pro never answered my point that Scar manipulates complex social dynamics to get what he wants. Scar abuses the fatherly love of Mufasa to orchestrate his murder and uses Simba's trust to trick him into running away. This villainous behavior is infinitely more interesting than using a snake staff to hypnotize people; it adds moral texture to the Lion King, a key part of the artistic goal of creating an emotionally compelling story. -Action scenes are totally irrelevant to this debate. Both movies have more than enough action to serve the purposes of the film; this is a moot point. Pro also drops that Mufasa's death is an iconic scene; this pivotal action scene has embedded itself in the psyche of pop-culture. Aladdin is best known for Genie's show-stealing and the magic carpet scene. Of the two movies, the Lion King is more defined by its action scenes. -Pro totally ignores my analysis of Simba's moral evolution- Pro himself described how Simba went from being arrogant to afraid to heroic. Throughout the movie we see Simba literally and ethically growing up. He transforms from a child that is brash but also frightened and helpless into an adolescent struggling to reconcile "Hakuna Matata" with the moral truths his father taught him and finally into a mature adult willing to accept responsibility for his life. This is the character develop that Pro is comparing to Aladdin ALMOST telling the truth. -Obviously Simba changes moods with the situation, that's how mood works. -All Pro can say is Aladdin ALMOST tells the truth. The bottom line is Aladdin was a liar the whole movie, was forcefully exposed, and suffered ZERO consequences for his lies. Jasmine doesn't even bat an eye at Aladdin's chronic dishonesty. -Pro ignores my point that saving Jasmine doesn't erase Aladdin's chronic lying; Jasmine should have at least been a little mad or said "I forgive you but seriously knock it off with the lies." Jasmine's actual response to Aladdin's lies is to say "I know why you did." Her response is literally to just brush it off like it totally made sense for Aladdin to repeatedly trick her and manipulate her father. -If you watch the scene it is clear that Jasmine is still skeptical when Aladdin says she can make her own choices but is finally won over when she sees he can fly. Again, bottom line is it's the magic toys that seal the deal NOT the force of Aladdin's character. -Pro concedes "The Lion King's beginning is simply too darn a masterpiece...if the rest of arguments tied, then you win the debate." Pro himself says if voters are on the fence they should vote Con. - Timon and Pumbaa saved Simba's life and ultimately facilitated his return as King to Pride rock; how is that ruining a life? I also briefly mentioned that Timon and Pumba serve an important role to the artistic vision of the Lion King. They represent a philosophy of "no worries" that Simba must learn to reject. They also engage in conversation that shows Simba struggling to come to terms with his past. Timon and Pumbaa engage with the plot of the Lion King while Genie is a stand-alone comedy side show. -Pro's plot holes are flimsy. It is ambiguous whether Mufasa actually spoke from the dead or if the scene is visual allegory for Simba's personal realization. Also, Rafiki was clearly instrumental to the appearance of Mufasa- that's why Mufasa couldn't show up whenever. Also, a crowd of Lion forgetting conflicting info in the heat of the moment isn't a plot hole; plus they could have thought Scar was simply mistaken when he said Simba died. ALSO if we want to bring up plot holes in the final round: WHY DIDN'T GENIE SIMPLY PROMISE TO MAKE ALADDIN A PRINCE AFTER HE WAS SET FREE . Genie could have promised Aladdin infinite wishes once he was free! Or Aladdin could have wished himself a prince, then give the lamp to Jasmine to set Genie free. The number of plot holes in a move with an all-powerful genie is always going to be far greater than one about talking lions. I only bring this up in response to Pro's new argument in the final round and because Pro said doing so was allowed. Vote Con

Raisor

First I will give an overview of why I have won this debate, and then I will briefly address some of Pro’s R4 arguments. Why I have won: In this debate, both sides have made a lot of arguments about diverse aspects of the Aladdin and The Lion King. What the judges need is some way to compare all these arguments and determine which are the most important. For this we can look to the Framework I provided in R1- we should decide which movie is superior based on which movie better achieved its artistic goals. The standard of evaluating the Resolution was never disputed by Pro. The bulk of Pro’s arguments can be dismissed as un-compelling under this Framework- Pro mostly just points out differences between the two movies and arbitrarily claims that whatever Aladdin did differently is better. For example, Pro claims Aladdin has more action scenes and so is better. Since neither the Lion King nor Aladdin has the artistic goal of being action-packed, number of action scenes is a bad metric to evaluate the Resolution. My arguments have largely centered on how well each film fulfills its artistic goals. I talk about how Jasmine’s actions undermine the type of role model she is meant to be, how the plot fails to bear out the stated moral that lying is bad, and how the Genie throws the movie off balance. My arguments evaluate Aladdin by the artistic standard it sets for itself; I am not applying an arbitrary metric like “The Lion King is sadder and therefore better.” The upshot of this is that if I won all my main arguments AND Pro won all his main arguments, I would win this debate because my main arguments better speak to the Resolution. It may well be true that Jafaar is a better villain (it isn’t) but the Lion King isn’t trying to win a “Best villain” competition. At the same, it is a major fault if Aladdin fails to show that lying is wrong, since Aladdin IS trying to be a story about the importance of honesty. Line-by-line Rebuttal: -Genie digresses into weird pop-culture impressions and has spawned fan theories that Aladdin is post-apocalyptic – that’s the definition of overshadowing the rest of the movie. -Pro just proves my point that Jafaar is a flat character that does whatever he wants because he’s magic; most of his success comes from his ability to hypnotize people. -Pro’s claims that Scar could move are totally irrelevant; the degradation of the Pride lands was an intentional artistic choice to illustrate why bad people make bad rulers. -Pro never answered my point that Scar manipulates complex social dynamics to get what he wants. Scar abuses the fatherly love of Mufasa to orchestrate his murder and uses Simba’s trust to trick him into running away. This villainous behavior is infinitely more interesting than using a snake staff to hypnotize people; it adds moral texture to the Lion King, a key part of the artistic goal of creating an emotionally compelling story. -Action scenes are totally irrelevant to this debate. Both movies have more than enough action to serve the purposes of the film; this is a moot point. Pro also drops that Mufasa’s death is an iconic scene; this pivotal action scene has embedded itself in the psyche of pop-culture. Aladdin is best known for Genie’s show-stealing and the magic carpet scene. Of the two movies, the Lion King is more defined by its action scenes. -Pro totally ignores my analysis of Simba’s moral evolution- Pro himself described how Simba went from being arrogant to afraid to heroic. Throughout the movie we see Simba literally and ethically growing up. He transforms from a child that is brash but also frightened and helpless into an adolescent struggling to reconcile “Hakuna Matata” with the moral truths his father taught him and finally into a mature adult willing to accept responsibility for his life. This is the character develop that Pro is comparing to Aladdin ALMOST telling the truth. -Obviously Simba changes moods with the situation, that’s how mood works. -All Pro can say is Aladdin ALMOST tells the truth. The bottom line is Aladdin was a liar the whole movie, was forcefully exposed, and suffered ZERO consequences for his lies. Jasmine doesn’t even bat an eye at Aladdin’s chronic dishonesty. -Pro ignores my point that saving Jasmine doesn’t erase Aladdin’s chronic lying; Jasmine should have at least been a little mad or said “I forgive you but seriously knock it off with the lies.” Jasmine’s actual response to Aladdin’s lies is to say “I know why you did.” Her response is literally to just brush it off like it totally made sense for Aladdin to repeatedly trick her and manipulate her father. -If you watch the scene it is clear that Jasmine is still skeptical when Aladdin says she can make her own choices but is finally won over when she sees he can fly. Again, bottom line is it’s the magic toys that seal the deal NOT the force of Aladdin’s character. -Pro concedes “The Lion King’s beginning is simply too darn a masterpiece…if the rest of arguments tied, then you win the debate.” Pro himself says if voters are on the fence they should vote Con. - Timon and Pumbaa saved Simba’s life and ultimately facilitated his return as King to Pride rock; how is that ruining a life? I also briefly mentioned that Timon and Pumba serve an important role to the artistic vision of the Lion King. They represent a philosophy of “no worries” that Simba must learn to reject. They also engage in conversation that shows Simba struggling to come to terms with his past. Timon and Pumbaa engage with the plot of the Lion King while Genie is a stand-alone comedy side show. -Pro’s plot holes are flimsy. It is ambiguous whether Mufasa actually spoke from the dead or if the scene is visual allegory for Simba’s personal realization. Also, Rafiki was clearly instrumental to the appearance of Mufasa- that’s why Mufasa couldn’t show up whenever. Also, a crowd of Lion forgetting conflicting info in the heat of the moment isn’t a plot hole; plus they could have thought Scar was simply mistaken when he said Simba died. ALSO if we want to bring up plot holes in the final round: WHY DIDN’T GENIE SIMPLY PROMISE TO MAKE ALADDIN A PRINCE AFTER HE WAS SET FREE . Genie could have promised Aladdin infinite wishes once he was free! Or Aladdin could have wished himself a prince, then give the lamp to Jasmine to set Genie free. The number of plot holes in a move with an all-powerful genie is always going to be far greater than one about talking lions. I only bring this up in response to Pro’s new argument in the final round and because Pro said doing so was allowed. Vote Con

Movies

Aladdin-is-a-Superior-Movie-over-The-Lion-King/1/

Felonies, decribed in lawinfo.com as "any crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death for capital offenses". In this debate, it should be argued wether or not all Felonies including, but not limited to Assult, Rape, Murder, and Illegal Possesion of Narcotic Paraphernalia should be "treated" equally. Meaning that they should recieve the same attention in court, and that no matter the size of the felony, it should be looked as the same as the worst felony. For example, if a entity is found guilty of Murder, asn is sentenced to 50 years prison, someone whom has commieted aggravated assault should recieve the same penalty. In order to participate in this debate, you must understand and comnform to a group of variables, which are established to avoid any "what if" situation, and to best avoid biased or personal argument. they are as follow: 1. Any entity which isused in the debate by either the Contender or Instigator must not be looked at or treated differentl because of Race or Sex, therefore, the debaters should not look at the accused or condemned as different type of people, but simply as a human beings. 2. The debaters MUST assume that any entity used in teh debate is guilty of whatever crime it is being accused of. No exceptions. 3. The debaters CANNOT try to justify a felony by stating that it was a matter of honor or passion, or that it was an unintentional action. therefore, the debaters MUST assume that the entities which commited the felonies did so in a intentional, concious, and malicious manner. No Exceptions. This being said, i will officially begin the debate. Being the Pro in the topic, i shall present my argument first. Over 54% of crimes in the U.S. are felonies. Felonies include a wide spectrum of crimes from assault to Murder. Many felonies are treated quite differently and most have differencces in priority and in the punishment presented to the felon which commited the felony. I believe that all felonies, no matter their size or graveness, should be treated in the same way, as a serious crime with malicious intent. There are several reasons to why I argue this point. 1. Equal and sistematic punishment will discourage people from commiting crimes other than murder and rape, as they will fear life imprisoment or the death penalty as a result for their actions. this is just how the death penalty affects the community. It has been proven that countries which use the death penalty have less criminals than countries whom do not use the death penalty. 2. Treating all felonies as equal will make the justice system more swift and efficient. In trials, most of the time, Judges must determine how much penalty should be given to a felon, and how. If all felons were given the same penalty for commiting a felony, the "Justice sytem would not have to waste so much time questioning what penalty to impose on the felon. In conclusion, treating all felonies as the same will not only discourage possible felons, but will help the justice system to more efficiently deal with current felons. I wish my opponent, whomever it may be, the best of luck.

simbaguy2

Felonies, decribed in lawinfo.com as "any crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death for capital offenses". In this debate, it should be argued wether or not all Felonies including, but not limited to Assult, Rape, Murder, and Illegal Possesion of Narcotic Paraphernalia should be "treated" equally. Meaning that they should recieve the same attention in court, and that no matter the size of the felony, it should be looked as the same as the worst felony. For example, if a entity is found guilty of Murder, asn is sentenced to 50 years prison, someone whom has commieted aggravated assault should recieve the same penalty. In order to participate in this debate, you must understand and comnform to a group of variables, which are established to avoid any "what if" situation, and to best avoid biased or personal argument. they are as follow: 1. Any entity which isused in the debate by either the Contender or Instigator must not be looked at or treated differentl because of Race or Sex, therefore, the debaters should not look at the accused or condemned as different type of people, but simply as a human beings. 2. The debaters MUST assume that any entity used in teh debate is guilty of whatever crime it is being accused of. No exceptions. 3. The debaters CANNOT try to justify a felony by stating that it was a matter of honor or passion, or that it was an unintentional action. therefore, the debaters MUST assume that the entities which commited the felonies did so in a intentional, concious, and malicious manner. No Exceptions. This being said, i will officially begin the debate. Being the Pro in the topic, i shall present my argument first. Over 54% of crimes in the U.S. are felonies. Felonies include a wide spectrum of crimes from assault to Murder. Many felonies are treated quite differently and most have differencces in priority and in the punishment presented to the felon which commited the felony. I believe that all felonies, no matter their size or graveness, should be treated in the same way, as a serious crime with malicious intent. There are several reasons to why I argue this point. 1. Equal and sistematic punishment will discourage people from commiting crimes other than murder and rape, as they will fear life imprisoment or the death penalty as a result for their actions. this is just how the death penalty affects the community. It has been proven that countries which use the death penalty have less criminals than countries whom do not use the death penalty. 2. Treating all felonies as equal will make the justice system more swift and efficient. In trials, most of the time, Judges must determine how much penalty should be given to a felon, and how. If all felons were given the same penalty for commiting a felony, the "Justice sytem would not have to waste so much time questioning what penalty to impose on the felon. In conclusion, treating all felonies as the same will not only discourage possible felons, but will help the justice system to more efficiently deal with current felons. I wish my opponent, whomever it may be, the best of luck.

Society

All-Felonies-should-be-treated-equally/1/

ok according to NYtimes illegal immigrants create a substansial amount of revonue for AMERICA"S dieing programs like social security ect... and they never c this money again, also lets look at morality, its imorale to send someone back to their own country of orgin when they left their life. wed be sending them, a deathwish and starvation I am all for not letting more illegal imigrants in but the ones who are should let to stay. i like stricter policy's for entrance but document the illegal immigrants.

defleppard1691

ok according to NYtimes illegal immigrants create a substansial amount of revonue for AMERICA"S dieing programs like social security ect... and they never c this money again, also lets look at morality, its imorale to send someone back to their own country of orgin when they left their life. wed be sending them, a deathwish and starvation I am all for not letting more illegal imigrants in but the ones who are should let to stay. i like stricter policy's for entrance but document the illegal immigrants.

Politics

All-Illegal-immigrants-should-be-deported/1/

I believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported, plain and simple. There is no reason to allow them to remain in our country and leech off of our society. I do not want to pay more of my hard earned money to give medicare to a person that does not pay into it. I have no problems with people coming into our country, as long as they do it the right way. I know that our processes for getting a green card or a visa are not perfect and they are not fast, however, they are there for a reason.

zacollins

I believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported, plain and simple. There is no reason to allow them to remain in our country and leech off of our society. I do not want to pay more of my hard earned money to give medicare to a person that does not pay into it. I have no problems with people coming into our country, as long as they do it the right way. I know that our processes for getting a green card or a visa are not perfect and they are not fast, however, they are there for a reason.

Politics

All-Illegal-immigrants-should-be-deported/1/

OK, so running off of your 1st speech, it seems clear that this is going to be a positive/ negative impact debate. To clarify, whoever can make the best argument towards good things that will happen if they win, and/or bad things that will happen if their opponent wins, will be the victor. Fair enough? Next, as the con, I am advocating for a system that would not allow citizens to own guns. So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 3) As I am only advocating for CITIZENS not owning guns, it is safe to assume that on duty police officers will have firearms, and will provide as the defense for the "defenseless". Your next impact is a question, not an argument, but I'll show its insignificance anyway. You provide no warrant, rationale, or precedence in which a citizen has been attacked by their government, mush less needed a gun to defend themselves. The only citizens that would normally be attacked by the government are law- breakers, which flows into my argument #3 on your 1st point. So, at this point, I have made it clear why the bad things he said are not likely to happen, and why we shouldn't vote pro, I'll tell you why we should vote con. To do this I will use a series of negative impacts like my opponent, only I intend to support them with rationale and/or evidence. Point 1: Do you like children? I know I do, I believe that children are our future, they are a good thing to strive to protect. Well, a Harvard University Study published in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma, shows that children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in states with the lower levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall. VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children." Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children." The availability of guns has a direct effect on the number of children being killed with guns. That's a good reason to vote con. Point 2: Since we are clearly valuing the protection of citizens, domestic violence also increases due to firearm availability. The results from a Multi-Site Case Control Study by J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C., as published in American Journal of Public Health show: "Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no forearms. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." Because firearm availability increases domestic fatalities, more citizens, in this case women are harmed by the presence of firearms. Under this same argument, to preempt the argument that women could use guns to defend themselves, I turn to the article A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. (2001): "In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun." It is clear that domestic violence and deaths will increase due to domestically owned guns, a severe negative impact is placed on the pro's goal of protecting citizens. Point 3: The ownership of a firearm is actually more likely to make you a victim of homocide. According to the findings from a recent case-control study (Kellermann et al. 1993) were interpreted as indicating that "persons who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times as likely to become homicide victims as persons in households without guns." An article published by the Harvard School for Public Health called "Firearm availability and homicide". "The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Owning a gun actually statistically increases the harm that will be done to you, this directly opposes the pro's value of citizen protection because the ownership of guns does directly the opposite. Point 4: The availability of firearms increases suicides. According to a study and case review done by: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhO; IVIartin Killias, PhD; Urs Hepp, MD; Erika Gadola, MA; Matthias Bopp, PhD; Christoph Lauber, MD; Ulrich Schnyder, MD; Felix Gutzwiller, MD; DrPH, and Wulf Rossler, MD, MA. "This result is in line with the well-established association between availability of firearms at home and risk of firearm suicide.' Firearm suicides depend on the availability of the method more than other suicide methods. Firearm suicides result more often fixed impulsive decisions than other suicide methods and tend to be associated more often with alcohol abuse." Victims of firearm suicides were shown to have distinctly fewer previous suicide attempts (22%) in their psychiatric history than were victims of other suicide methods (360/0-70%). Furthermore, firearms are more lethal than most other suicide methods." Increases in suicide rates are directly related to the availability of firearms, and these suicides are exclusive to firearms. This is another reason that the private ownership of firearms harms individual citizens that the pro was trying to protect. Summary: I have given 4 main points that show conclusively that citizens are harmed by firearms, more than they could be helped by using them for self- defense. I have given piles of creditable evidence to support each and every claim I make, something that my opponent fails to do. We are both valuing the protection of citizens, that's why he's saying we must have private ownership, that's why I'm saying we shouldn't. If a single one of my points stands in this round, we should vote con. As a final note, I challenge my opponent to retrieve evidence that is not from or derived from the research conducted by the NRA. The NRA has a direct economic incentive to produce false evidence, and I claim that they have done so on several occasions. They are a tainted source and should not be used in this debate.

bcaldwell100

OK, so running off of your 1st speech, it seems clear that this is going to be a positive/ negative impact debate. To clarify, whoever can make the best argument towards good things that will happen if they win, and/or bad things that will happen if their opponent wins, will be the victor. Fair enough? Next, as the con, I am advocating for a system that would not allow citizens to own guns. So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 3) As I am only advocating for CITIZENS not owning guns, it is safe to assume that on duty police officers will have firearms, and will provide as the defense for the "defenseless". Your next impact is a question, not an argument, but I'll show its insignificance anyway. You provide no warrant, rationale, or precedence in which a citizen has been attacked by their government, mush less needed a gun to defend themselves. The only citizens that would normally be attacked by the government are law- breakers, which flows into my argument #3 on your 1st point. So, at this point, I have made it clear why the bad things he said are not likely to happen, and why we shouldn't vote pro, I'll tell you why we should vote con. To do this I will use a series of negative impacts like my opponent, only I intend to support them with rationale and/or evidence. Point 1: Do you like children? I know I do, I believe that children are our future, they are a good thing to strive to protect. Well, a Harvard University Study published in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma, shows that children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in states with the lower levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall. VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children." Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children." The availability of guns has a direct effect on the number of children being killed with guns. That's a good reason to vote con. Point 2: Since we are clearly valuing the protection of citizens, domestic violence also increases due to firearm availability. The results from a Multi-Site Case Control Study by J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C., as published in American Journal of Public Health show: "Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no forearms. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners." Because firearm availability increases domestic fatalities, more citizens, in this case women are harmed by the presence of firearms. Under this same argument, to preempt the argument that women could use guns to defend themselves, I turn to the article A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. (2001): "In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun." It is clear that domestic violence and deaths will increase due to domestically owned guns, a severe negative impact is placed on the pro's goal of protecting citizens. Point 3: The ownership of a firearm is actually more likely to make you a victim of homocide. According to the findings from a recent case-control study (Kellermann et al. 1993) were interpreted as indicating that "persons who lived in households with guns were 2.7 times as likely to become homicide victims as persons in households without guns." An article published by the Harvard School for Public Health called "Firearm availability and homicide". "The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Owning a gun actually statistically increases the harm that will be done to you, this directly opposes the pro's value of citizen protection because the ownership of guns does directly the opposite. Point 4: The availability of firearms increases suicides. According to a study and case review done by: Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhO; IVIartin Killias, PhD; Urs Hepp, MD; Erika Gadola, MA; Matthias Bopp, PhD; Christoph Lauber, MD; Ulrich Schnyder, MD; Felix Gutzwiller, MD; DrPH, and Wulf Rossler, MD, MA. "This result is in line with the well-established association between availability of firearms at home and risk of firearm suicide.' Firearm suicides depend on the availability of the method more than other suicide methods. Firearm suicides result more often fixed impulsive decisions than other suicide methods and tend to be associated more often with alcohol abuse." Victims of firearm suicides were shown to have distinctly fewer previous suicide attempts (22%) in their psychiatric history than were victims of other suicide methods (360/0-70%). Furthermore, firearms are more lethal than most other suicide methods." Increases in suicide rates are directly related to the availability of firearms, and these suicides are exclusive to firearms. This is another reason that the private ownership of firearms harms individual citizens that the pro was trying to protect. Summary: I have given 4 main points that show conclusively that citizens are harmed by firearms, more than they could be helped by using them for self- defense. I have given piles of creditable evidence to support each and every claim I make, something that my opponent fails to do. We are both valuing the protection of citizens, that's why he's saying we must have private ownership, that's why I'm saying we shouldn't. If a single one of my points stands in this round, we should vote con. As a final note, I challenge my opponent to retrieve evidence that is not from or derived from the research conducted by the NRA. The NRA has a direct economic incentive to produce false evidence, and I claim that they have done so on several occasions. They are a tainted source and should not be used in this debate.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

OK, so your ENTIRE rebuttal was a defense of the attacks I made on your case. Keep in mind, you don't simply win if I don't land an argument against your case, I have given 4 well supported reasons why banning private ownership of guns would do FAR more good than bad. At this point, just by landing ALL 4 POINTS, I should win. But, I still have plenty of room, so I'll cover your case and reiterate my own. Quote: 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no? Rebuttal: 1- My number 1 point was stating that a minority of Americans currently own a gun, therefore, many people are "defenseless" already. So if I was to ban guns, the number of victims wouldn't rise all that much, assuming my 3rd main point falls out. If my point 3 stands (which it has) You are actually increasing the number of people victimized by guns, while I am decreasing them. Essentially, even if this point is right (which it is not), you cannot win with it because my arguments show that you still pose a higher level of threat for the general public. 2- Yes Criminals will still get their hands on guns, but with a complete gun ban, it will be much harder for them to obtain these guns. The main effect of this argument is that, there is a high possibility that the number of criminals will actually decrease, or at least not increase, if my ban was put in place. Which is just one more reason to vote con. Again, even if I don't win this argument, I have shown with any of my 4 points, that MORE citizens will be hurt by maintaining gun ownership than of we ban it. Since the only reason that criminals having guns is bad is because they'll hurt citizens, I outweigh you at this point. Since more law abiding citizens die on your side, I should win. 3- I already argue this in my point 3 against your case. I say that you are incorrectly assuming that police officers will break into lawful citizens houses and kill them. You give no reason whatsoever why this would happen. I see no examples, studies, rationale, or evidence of any sort to support this claim, there is no reason any voters should use it to vote pro. The only time a police officer would break into someone's home is if they were suspected of crime and the police had obtained a warrant. This means that your argument is actually defending CRIMINALS' rights to own guns and shoot at our boys in blue. This alone is another reason to vote CON!!! OK, on to my entirely unscathed case. If you look back to my main points, you will se that I firmly establish, with evidence, that: 1) More children will die if a gun ban is not established. Children dying is a bad thing, and therefore we should vote con to avoid it happening as often. 2) Domestic violence is more common and more deadly with the private ownership of firearms. This means that more women will die if we don't establish a gun ban. Since women dying is a bad thing, we should vote con to stop it from happening as often. 3) The private ownership of a gun is MORE likely to get you murdered. This is a huge argument because it directly disproves the idea that letting criminals have guns will increase the number of innocent citizens that will die. I support this with mounds of evidence and you provide none. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, so we should vote con to reduce that. 4) More people will commit suicide if firearms are more available. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD!!!!!!! So we should vote con to prevent it from happening as often. Let me make this as simple as possible. You hurt MORE citizens than I do, therefore, you lose. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD!!!!! If you kill people, while I do not; or you kill more people while I kill less; I WIN. At this point, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have 4 main reasons why you conclusively LOSE.

bcaldwell100

OK, so your ENTIRE rebuttal was a defense of the attacks I made on your case. Keep in mind, you don't simply win if I don't land an argument against your case, I have given 4 well supported reasons why banning private ownership of guns would do FAR more good than bad. At this point, just by landing ALL 4 POINTS, I should win. But, I still have plenty of room, so I'll cover your case and reiterate my own. Quote: 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no? Rebuttal: 1- My number 1 point was stating that a minority of Americans currently own a gun, therefore, many people are "defenseless" already. So if I was to ban guns, the number of victims wouldn't rise all that much, assuming my 3rd main point falls out. If my point 3 stands (which it has) You are actually increasing the number of people victimized by guns, while I am decreasing them. Essentially, even if this point is right (which it is not), you cannot win with it because my arguments show that you still pose a higher level of threat for the general public. 2- Yes Criminals will still get their hands on guns, but with a complete gun ban, it will be much harder for them to obtain these guns. The main effect of this argument is that, there is a high possibility that the number of criminals will actually decrease, or at least not increase, if my ban was put in place. Which is just one more reason to vote con. Again, even if I don't win this argument, I have shown with any of my 4 points, that MORE citizens will be hurt by maintaining gun ownership than of we ban it. Since the only reason that criminals having guns is bad is because they'll hurt citizens, I outweigh you at this point. Since more law abiding citizens die on your side, I should win. 3- I already argue this in my point 3 against your case. I say that you are incorrectly assuming that police officers will break into lawful citizens houses and kill them. You give no reason whatsoever why this would happen. I see no examples, studies, rationale, or evidence of any sort to support this claim, there is no reason any voters should use it to vote pro. The only time a police officer would break into someone's home is if they were suspected of crime and the police had obtained a warrant. This means that your argument is actually defending CRIMINALS' rights to own guns and shoot at our boys in blue. This alone is another reason to vote CON!!! OK, on to my entirely unscathed case. If you look back to my main points, you will se that I firmly establish, with evidence, that: 1) More children will die if a gun ban is not established. Children dying is a bad thing, and therefore we should vote con to avoid it happening as often. 2) Domestic violence is more common and more deadly with the private ownership of firearms. This means that more women will die if we don't establish a gun ban. Since women dying is a bad thing, we should vote con to stop it from happening as often. 3) The private ownership of a gun is MORE likely to get you murdered. This is a huge argument because it directly disproves the idea that letting criminals have guns will increase the number of innocent citizens that will die. I support this with mounds of evidence and you provide none. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, so we should vote con to reduce that. 4) More people will commit suicide if firearms are more available. PEOPLE DYING IS BAD!!!!!!! So we should vote con to prevent it from happening as often. Let me make this as simple as possible. You hurt MORE citizens than I do, therefore, you lose. Because KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD!!!!! If you kill people, while I do not; or you kill more people while I kill less; I WIN. At this point, you don't have a leg to stand on and I have 4 main reasons why you conclusively LOSE.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

First of all, I'd like to point out the abuse of this situation. It is round 3! He has completely trashed his original case and started an entirely new debate! I am expected to leave the case I have worked on and answer an entirely new pro case like it is round 1, this is a dirty trick and you should be scolded for it. But, I was never one to back out of a debate, no matter how unfair my opponent is being. Let me just wine a little more about the antics of my opponent. "You've forgotten the most important fact of all" That's because it is a new goddamned argument!!!! It wasn't part of the debate until NOW!!! "You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed." He essentially says in his speech that there is NO WAY I can win this argument, because he tells me I cannot use the only route he leaves me with, this is madness, for everyone who might ever vote on this topic, please see the abuse this man is putting upon me. So I'm going to reject your demand and argue past the Constitution. You are correct that the Constitution is an extremely important document that ought to be respected, however the claim that the USA was founded on the document is false. The Constitution was written after the establishment of the United States, the US was founded on an idea, not a text. The intentions of the Constitution supersede the text written there because without the intention of the law, the words are meaningless. The purpose of the United States government, and every western government was to protect and serve the citizens under it. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens that might be attacked by british solders or Indians. At the time that the constitution was written, guns helped citizens far more than they hurt them, therefore, to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens, they had to make guns a right. Today, however, the US has the same obligation to protect us, but, we are now hurt more by the ownership of firearms than we are aided. This goes back to my con case. If private gun ownership is unnecessarily detrimental to citizens, it is the FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION of the US of A to change the Amendment. The Constitution was made to preserve America, once the Constitution serves a purpose contrary to that of the reason it was MADE, it MUST be reformed. Since all 4 points in my case stand, PEOPLE WILL DIE UNDER YOUR CASE!!!! This is contrary to the fundamental purpose of your precious American government, and must be stopped. There, I have defeated your first and second case. I hope you regret changing your case, because now you cannot respond to any of my arguments, and I should win both cases. To summarize for voters: Under the pro case, I have firmly established that people will die. This is a bad thing. So bad, that no voter should vote pro, no government should agree with the pro, and the Constitution must be changed in order to PRESERVE the democracy known as the United States of America!

bcaldwell100

First of all, I'd like to point out the abuse of this situation. It is round 3! He has completely trashed his original case and started an entirely new debate! I am expected to leave the case I have worked on and answer an entirely new pro case like it is round 1, this is a dirty trick and you should be scolded for it. But, I was never one to back out of a debate, no matter how unfair my opponent is being. Let me just wine a little more about the antics of my opponent. "You've forgotten the most important fact of all" That's because it is a new goddamned argument!!!! It wasn't part of the debate until NOW!!! "You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed." He essentially says in his speech that there is NO WAY I can win this argument, because he tells me I cannot use the only route he leaves me with, this is madness, for everyone who might ever vote on this topic, please see the abuse this man is putting upon me. So I'm going to reject your demand and argue past the Constitution. You are correct that the Constitution is an extremely important document that ought to be respected, however the claim that the USA was founded on the document is false. The Constitution was written after the establishment of the United States, the US was founded on an idea, not a text. The intentions of the Constitution supersede the text written there because without the intention of the law, the words are meaningless. The purpose of the United States government, and every western government was to protect and serve the citizens under it. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect citizens that might be attacked by british solders or Indians. At the time that the constitution was written, guns helped citizens far more than they hurt them, therefore, to fulfill their obligation to protect citizens, they had to make guns a right. Today, however, the US has the same obligation to protect us, but, we are now hurt more by the ownership of firearms than we are aided. This goes back to my con case. If private gun ownership is unnecessarily detrimental to citizens, it is the FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATION of the US of A to change the Amendment. The Constitution was made to preserve America, once the Constitution serves a purpose contrary to that of the reason it was MADE, it MUST be reformed. Since all 4 points in my case stand, PEOPLE WILL DIE UNDER YOUR CASE!!!! This is contrary to the fundamental purpose of your precious American government, and must be stopped. There, I have defeated your first and second case. I hope you regret changing your case, because now you cannot respond to any of my arguments, and I should win both cases. To summarize for voters: Under the pro case, I have firmly established that people will die. This is a bad thing. So bad, that no voter should vote pro, no government should agree with the pro, and the Constitution must be changed in order to PRESERVE the democracy known as the United States of America!

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

Criminals will always get their hands on guns. You can ban everyone from using them, they'll take advantage of it and use them against the law-abidding citizens. Isn't it scary that the government can decided at any time to have some troopers storm a house and kill you? Wouldn't you like to defend yourself? Criminals always can get guns from outside of the US, they'll just use them against us, the law followers.

revleader5

Criminals will always get their hands on guns. You can ban everyone from using them, they'll take advantage of it and use them against the law-abidding citizens. Isn't it scary that the government can decided at any time to have some troopers storm a house and kill you? Wouldn't you like to defend yourself? Criminals always can get guns from outside of the US, they'll just use them against us, the law followers.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

Quote from your argument- So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?

revleader5

Quote from your argument- So your biggest negative impact is that criminals will get a leg up and hurt helpless citizens. To minimize that impact I provide 3 rational. 1) Most Americans do not own a gun; therefore, the number of citizens that will be defenseless will not increase dramatically. 2) It will still be harder for criminals to own guns, they'd have to get it from a black market. As with any black market, it will be unreliable, and the merchandise will be far more expensive. Most criminals have very little money, so there are several reasons why the number of criminals with guns will actually decrease from the status quo. 1- Your number 1 point doesn't make sense. Please explain. 2- Criminals will get their hands on the guns no matter what. Smuggled guns, black market. You just said it yourself, they have their sources. 3- I didn't post it but what if a police officer decided to rob you. Defensless no?

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

You've forgotten the most important fact of all. You know how the Constitution states our god-given rights that cannot be taken away by anyone? The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Explain to me how you plan that we could create laws that infringe upon the Constitution, the document under which the USA was founded? You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.

revleader5

You've forgotten the most important fact of all. You know how the Constitution states our god-given rights that cannot be taken away by anyone? The constitution of the United States says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Explain to me how you plan that we could create laws that infringe upon the Constitution, the document under which the USA was founded? You can't say the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.

Politics

All-citizens-who-have-not-committed-a-crime-should-have-the-right-to-purchase-a-gun./1/

Firstly, I'd like to thank Harboggles for starting such an interesting topic. There are many arguments for both sides, let's hope we have an interesting and engaging debate. I'll begin with a bit of topic analysis: The resolution is as follows "All drugs should be legalized." This means we're not only debating the legalization of Marijuana or Shrooms, but also the legalization of hard drugs that cause real psychological, physiological, and neurological damage, like Heroin and Crack Cocaine. Let's go through his arguments, point by point. "1. They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay." What makes you think that there wouldn't be a black market for drugs, even if they were legalized? There is a very lucrative black market for guns, it wouldn't be any different for drugs. Furthermore, what you're in essence saying is that it is good for the government to make money off of depraved and deranged addicts who will do anything for another fix. "2. Many of them are harmless in the short term." Sure, but we're debating ALL drugs, not SOME drugs or MANY drugs. Heroin is devastating from the first time it is injected or inhaled, same goes for Cocaine, Crack, and LSD. Furthermore, if the drugs are laced with other substances we can't even guarantee that an inhalation of a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana will be "harmless." "3. We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users." I agree with you, but this is not an argument for legalization. It is an argument that advocates for a new approach to drug crime legislation, an approach that would focus on rehabilation over retribution. "4. Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate." Psychological addictions can be just as devastating as physical ones, first of all, and patterns of abuse can occur very easily. Secondly, while "most" might only be psychologically addictive, many others are physically addictive, and these ones are the worst ones. In a debate over the legalization of all drugs, there is no way that this is an argument for Pro. "5. There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it)" What? Do you have any evidence that the claims made by anti-drug advocates are false? Do you have any evidence that shows that "most research has actually shown that [marijuana] cures cancer, or prevents it"? This is a ludicrous argument, baseless at best. "6. By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created." This is false, as I demonstrated earlier when I cited the black market centered around arms smuggling. Even if drugs were legalized there would still be an underground market for them, perhaps for cheaper prices or for a way to get around government restriction. In fact, if we gave more power to "clean industrial production" you can guarantee the drugs might get even more dangerous, packed with nicotine like cigarettes are. Marijuana would become physically addictive! As can be seen, each argument my opponent gives can be neatly rebutted with an obvious and clear counter-argument. My opponent goes on to say that since we can do things like buy cigarettes and vote at 18, we should be able to get addicted to heroin and ruin our lives at 18, too. Obviously his position endorses irresponsibility and societal unrest. For these reasons I urge a Con vote.

Aietius

Firstly, I'd like to thank Harboggles for starting such an interesting topic. There are many arguments for both sides, let's hope we have an interesting and engaging debate. I'll begin with a bit of topic analysis: The resolution is as follows "All drugs should be legalized." This means we're not only debating the legalization of Marijuana or Shrooms, but also the legalization of hard drugs that cause real psychological, physiological, and neurological damage, like Heroin and Crack Cocaine. Let's go through his arguments, point by point. "1. They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay." What makes you think that there wouldn't be a black market for drugs, even if they were legalized? There is a very lucrative black market for guns, it wouldn't be any different for drugs. Furthermore, what you're in essence saying is that it is good for the government to make money off of depraved and deranged addicts who will do anything for another fix. "2. Many of them are harmless in the short term." Sure, but we're debating ALL drugs, not SOME drugs or MANY drugs. Heroin is devastating from the first time it is injected or inhaled, same goes for Cocaine, Crack, and LSD. Furthermore, if the drugs are laced with other substances we can't even guarantee that an inhalation of a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana will be "harmless." "3. We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users." I agree with you, but this is not an argument for legalization. It is an argument that advocates for a new approach to drug crime legislation, an approach that would focus on rehabilation over retribution. "4. Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate." Psychological addictions can be just as devastating as physical ones, first of all, and patterns of abuse can occur very easily. Secondly, while "most" might only be psychologically addictive, many others are physically addictive, and these ones are the worst ones. In a debate over the legalization of all drugs, there is no way that this is an argument for Pro. "5. There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it)" What? Do you have any evidence that the claims made by anti-drug advocates are false? Do you have any evidence that shows that "most research has actually shown that [marijuana] cures cancer, or prevents it"? This is a ludicrous argument, baseless at best. "6. By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created." This is false, as I demonstrated earlier when I cited the black market centered around arms smuggling. Even if drugs were legalized there would still be an underground market for them, perhaps for cheaper prices or for a way to get around government restriction. In fact, if we gave more power to "clean industrial production" you can guarantee the drugs might get even more dangerous, packed with nicotine like cigarettes are. Marijuana would become physically addictive! As can be seen, each argument my opponent gives can be neatly rebutted with an obvious and clear counter-argument. My opponent goes on to say that since we can do things like buy cigarettes and vote at 18, we should be able to get addicted to heroin and ruin our lives at 18, too. Obviously his position endorses irresponsibility and societal unrest. For these reasons I urge a Con vote.

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legalized./2/

Thank you Harboggles for your prompt response, I'll try my best to rebut your arguments clearly and coherently. We'll go in numerical order. 1. Harboggles claims that a Black Market does not exist for items that are legalized, and as such there would be no black market for drugs if they were legalized. However, this argument falls short in two ways: 1) he ignores my example of gun trafficking despite the legality of firearms that I presented in round 1, and 2) his argument that we could tax drug sales which is a positive thing essentially means that we are happily benefitting and making money off of depraved addicts, desperate for a fix. How is this a good thing? 2. Harboggles argues that all drugs, including Crack and Heroin, are not dangerous in the short term. This is absurd. While I agree that a hit of Marijuana might not entail an immediate degradation of personal standards and well-being, I think that hard drugs like heroin are extremely harmful, even if taken only once. In fact, heroin is so dangerous because that first time is the initial high, and every fix after is an effort to return to the high of the first time. Not only that, but drugs like heroin and Crack create real, physical addictions. It's not about a psychological habit, it's about a body being hijacked by a drug and responding with real and dangerous withdrawal symptoms. As such, I argue that hard drugs are DEFINITELY harmful in the short term, and since the resolution concerns the legalization of all drugs as a whole, we are forced to negate. 3. My opponent argues that the war on drugs as it has been executed today has been a waste of money, and that the money should go instead to rehabilitation of addicts. He also argues that drug legislation should be less harsh on casual users. Let me just put it out there that I agree 100% with these statements. I think that drug legislation as of now has been laughably inept, and that more money should go into helping those with real addictions as opposed to locking up people who like to smoke a joint now and then. This being said, none of his 3rd point is an argument for the legalization of drugs. It is a criticism of drug legislation, criticism that I agree with, but it's not a reason that we should legalize all drugs. 4. Harboggles brings up the argument that habitual use of a certain substance is not necessarily an addiction. He claims that only a small amount of drug users are psychologically motivated to abuse substances, and that the rest should not be punished for that. First of all, it's not true that only a small amount of drug users do so for psychological reasons (what does that even mean, anyway?). Hard drugs, like heroin, crack, cocaine, and Chrystal Meth are all psychologically and physically addictive. This means that it's not habitual use, it's not a hobby, it's a lifestyle, a depressing, depraved, and painful lifestyle. Harboggles is trying to compare the use of cocaine and heroin to a normal hobby, like chess or soccer. This is obviously a false comparison. 5. Harboggles provides links to various sites that seem to offer some kind of evidence that, in fact, marijuana can have beneficial effects on human health. Let me just say that it's funny that he does this, because at the start of his round 1 argument he says: "1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda" Not only did Harboggles not quote the research, he provided links to sites like cannabisculture.com or medicalmarijuanablog.com or foxnews.com. Granted, a few of the links are reputable sources, like WebMD, and in that article the positive aspects of marijuana are explored. This is fine. Marijuana being a wonder-drug does not mean that we should legalize crack cocaine and heroin. Sure, maybe we should legalize weed. That is not the resolution that we are debating. 6. Harboggles restates his argument that black markets would not exist for drugs " because the quality, availability, and price would be fair." Um, how does he know this based on the scope of our debate? First of all, that's an awful lot of speculation. Second of all, he ignores my example of gun trafficking despite its legality. Again. My opponent closes his argument with some anecdotal evidence: he introduces us to Norm Stamper, a veteran of the Seattle Police Department. Great, but does he really think this constitutes an argument? I could present a million-and-one anti-drug advocates, all police chiefs and attorney generals and judges, who oppose the legalization. Would this be a valid argument? Of course not. Don't be fooled by Harboggle's misguided rhetoric. For all these reasons, I urge you to vote con.

Aietius

Thank you Harboggles for your prompt response, I'll try my best to rebut your arguments clearly and coherently. We'll go in numerical order. 1. Harboggles claims that a Black Market does not exist for items that are legalized, and as such there would be no black market for drugs if they were legalized. However, this argument falls short in two ways: 1) he ignores my example of gun trafficking despite the legality of firearms that I presented in round 1, and 2) his argument that we could tax drug sales which is a positive thing essentially means that we are happily benefitting and making money off of depraved addicts, desperate for a fix. How is this a good thing? 2. Harboggles argues that all drugs, including Crack and Heroin, are not dangerous in the short term. This is absurd. While I agree that a hit of Marijuana might not entail an immediate degradation of personal standards and well-being, I think that hard drugs like heroin are extremely harmful, even if taken only once. In fact, heroin is so dangerous because that first time is the initial high, and every fix after is an effort to return to the high of the first time. Not only that, but drugs like heroin and Crack create real, physical addictions. It's not about a psychological habit, it's about a body being hijacked by a drug and responding with real and dangerous withdrawal symptoms. As such, I argue that hard drugs are DEFINITELY harmful in the short term, and since the resolution concerns the legalization of all drugs as a whole, we are forced to negate. 3. My opponent argues that the war on drugs as it has been executed today has been a waste of money, and that the money should go instead to rehabilitation of addicts. He also argues that drug legislation should be less harsh on casual users. Let me just put it out there that I agree 100% with these statements. I think that drug legislation as of now has been laughably inept, and that more money should go into helping those with real addictions as opposed to locking up people who like to smoke a joint now and then. This being said, none of his 3rd point is an argument for the legalization of drugs. It is a criticism of drug legislation, criticism that I agree with, but it's not a reason that we should legalize all drugs. 4. Harboggles brings up the argument that habitual use of a certain substance is not necessarily an addiction. He claims that only a small amount of drug users are psychologically motivated to abuse substances, and that the rest should not be punished for that. First of all, it's not true that only a small amount of drug users do so for psychological reasons (what does that even mean, anyway?). Hard drugs, like heroin, crack, cocaine, and Chrystal Meth are all psychologically and physically addictive. This means that it's not habitual use, it's not a hobby, it's a lifestyle, a depressing, depraved, and painful lifestyle. Harboggles is trying to compare the use of cocaine and heroin to a normal hobby, like chess or soccer. This is obviously a false comparison. 5. Harboggles provides links to various sites that seem to offer some kind of evidence that, in fact, marijuana can have beneficial effects on human health. Let me just say that it's funny that he does this, because at the start of his round 1 argument he says: "1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda" Not only did Harboggles not quote the research, he provided links to sites like cannabisculture.com or medicalmarijuanablog.com or foxnews.com. Granted, a few of the links are reputable sources, like WebMD, and in that article the positive aspects of marijuana are explored. This is fine. Marijuana being a wonder-drug does not mean that we should legalize crack cocaine and heroin. Sure, maybe we should legalize weed. That is not the resolution that we are debating. 6. Harboggles restates his argument that black markets would not exist for drugs " because the quality, availability, and price would be fair." Um, how does he know this based on the scope of our debate? First of all, that's an awful lot of speculation. Second of all, he ignores my example of gun trafficking despite its legality. Again. My opponent closes his argument with some anecdotal evidence: he introduces us to Norm Stamper, a veteran of the Seattle Police Department. Great, but does he really think this constitutes an argument? I could present a million-and-one anti-drug advocates, all police chiefs and attorney generals and judges, who oppose the legalization. Would this be a valid argument? Of course not. Don't be fooled by Harboggle's misguided rhetoric. For all these reasons, I urge you to vote con.

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legalized./2/

I already did this debate, but I love doing it and hearing new perspectives...and I did it yesterday and got, nothing short of an illiterate moron who quoted propoganda, so I am instilling new standards, 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.

Harboggles

I already did this debate, but I love doing it and hearing new perspectives...and I did it yesterday and got, nothing short of an illiterate moron who quoted propoganda, so I am instilling new standards, 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legalized./2/

Your arguments are common so I already have some statements to make. 1. Black market, this idea is so obscenely wrong. The reason there exists a black market today is because the drugs are illegal right now. If you remove the market (by legalizing) then capitalism will take over, industrial production will begin and soon drugs will be available for legal purchase. Further, because it is industrial, it will fall under the wing of the FDA who will then consequently monitor the quality of drugs produced to make sure they are not cut with any bad drugs (this is a common problem with many drugs). Regulating the quality makes it safer. Besides, NO ONE wants to use drug dealers. Most would rather drive to 7/11 and buy something rather than wait around for their dealer to be ready. The black market would undoubtedly DIE. 2.Marijuana, LSD, Shrooms, Crack, Heroin, etc. None of these are dangerous in the short term (unless you overdose, which is an education of drugs issue not a legalization issue). Addicts sprout up, and over time if they are treated as patients (instead of as criminals and locked up) then they can return to normal life relatively easy (it's hard to do that with a felony on your record). But either way, danger is irrelevant, people KNOW what they are putting in their body and it's no one's business. Should we make cars illegal because they are dangerous? Probably, in the interest of safety, but we wont. 3.So why not take the money we spent on fighting the war on drugs, and instead of punishing people treat them as paitents and re-release them to society! At the same time, we should ignore casual users (except while being negligent IE. offering drugs to minors, DUI, etc.) 4.I have a short dialogue to prove that EVERYONE is addicted to something. Sex, alcohol, the internet, caffeine, chocolate, sports, etc. Me:"What is your favorite hobby?" You:"My favorite hobby is xyz" Me:"How often do you do it?" You: "Every day at least once!" Me: "Well you should stop." You: "Why?" Me:"It doesn't matter, you're clearly addicted to it! Therefore it is bad!" Enjoying doing something vs. being addicted to it are completely different. Granted there is a MINUSCULE percentage of drug users who do it for psychological reasons. But don't punish the rest of us, and don't ask us to give up a hobby that we like because you wouldn't give up yours either! 5.Certainly, studies! Yay! (Ps. evaluate the source of the study, not the website it's quoted on) <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... I can quote dozens more, but the general consensus (among the impartial science and medical community) is that Marijuana is AT THE LEAST not UNHEALTHY. Now, Inhaling carbon is ALWAYS bad for you no matter what, but bongs and vaporizers remove a massive percentage of the tar and ash inside of marijuana and make it safer than it already is. 6.There would be no black market (unless someone is REALLY dedicated to NOT paying taxes on them) because the quality, availability, and price would be fair and not involve going to some dodgy part of town to get drugs, you could go down the street. The only government restrictions should be on taxation of drugs, which is completely within the power of state and federal government. Recently, here at WWU we had the former Seattle Police chief come and speak to us, Norm Stamper, he served on the SDPD for 26 years and is now a strong proponent of legalization because it's been such a huge waste of money, time, people, and lives. He's more qualified than any of us, how can you argue that?

Harboggles

Your arguments are common so I already have some statements to make. 1. Black market, this idea is so obscenely wrong. The reason there exists a black market today is because the drugs are illegal right now. If you remove the market (by legalizing) then capitalism will take over, industrial production will begin and soon drugs will be available for legal purchase. Further, because it is industrial, it will fall under the wing of the FDA who will then consequently monitor the quality of drugs produced to make sure they are not cut with any bad drugs (this is a common problem with many drugs). Regulating the quality makes it safer. Besides, NO ONE wants to use drug dealers. Most would rather drive to 7/11 and buy something rather than wait around for their dealer to be ready. The black market would undoubtedly DIE. 2.Marijuana, LSD, Shrooms, Crack, Heroin, etc. None of these are dangerous in the short term (unless you overdose, which is an education of drugs issue not a legalization issue). Addicts sprout up, and over time if they are treated as patients (instead of as criminals and locked up) then they can return to normal life relatively easy (it's hard to do that with a felony on your record). But either way, danger is irrelevant, people KNOW what they are putting in their body and it's no one's business. Should we make cars illegal because they are dangerous? Probably, in the interest of safety, but we wont. 3.So why not take the money we spent on fighting the war on drugs, and instead of punishing people treat them as paitents and re-release them to society! At the same time, we should ignore casual users (except while being negligent IE. offering drugs to minors, DUI, etc.) 4.I have a short dialogue to prove that EVERYONE is addicted to something. Sex, alcohol, the internet, caffeine, chocolate, sports, etc. Me:"What is your favorite hobby?" You:"My favorite hobby is xyz" Me:"How often do you do it?" You: "Every day at least once!" Me: "Well you should stop." You: "Why?" Me:"It doesn't matter, you're clearly addicted to it! Therefore it is bad!" Enjoying doing something vs. being addicted to it are completely different. Granted there is a MINUSCULE percentage of drug users who do it for psychological reasons. But don't punish the rest of us, and don't ask us to give up a hobby that we like because you wouldn't give up yours either! 5.Certainly, studies! Yay! (Ps. evaluate the source of the study, not the website it's quoted on) http://cannabisculture.com... http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com... http://www.salem-news.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.counterpunch.org... http://www.newscientist.com... I can quote dozens more, but the general consensus (among the impartial science and medical community) is that Marijuana is AT THE LEAST not UNHEALTHY. Now, Inhaling carbon is ALWAYS bad for you no matter what, but bongs and vaporizers remove a massive percentage of the tar and ash inside of marijuana and make it safer than it already is. 6.There would be no black market (unless someone is REALLY dedicated to NOT paying taxes on them) because the quality, availability, and price would be fair and not involve going to some dodgy part of town to get drugs, you could go down the street. The only government restrictions should be on taxation of drugs, which is completely within the power of state and federal government. Recently, here at WWU we had the former Seattle Police chief come and speak to us, Norm Stamper, he served on the SDPD for 26 years and is now a strong proponent of legalization because it's been such a huge waste of money, time, people, and lives. He's more qualified than any of us, how can you argue that?

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legalized./2/

1.Why does a black market exist for hand guns? Because they aren't completely legal, they are restricted with permits in regards to type (automatics for example) and the quantity owned. For example, most civilians cannot attain a sniper rifle capable of blowing a hole in a tank from 2 miles away. That makes sense, most don't need that capability. Now, imagine if it was perfectly legal to sell that sniper rifle...the black market would not need to exist. The REASON that the black market exists is because there is underground demand. By bringing the demand aboveground vendors are safe and in the daylight where cops are around and people can get them. Now, there will always be people who 1. want a gun that is "off the grid" those are what we call Career criminals, murderers, thiefs, etc. Or, those who want a gun tax free, that market will ALWAYS exist. Drugs are underground because ANY form of possession is illegal under the federal government. If they were legalized people would buy from their local tobacconist and get doses of controlled purities. Yes there would be people growing marijuana/poppies/coca plants at home that would be "under the table" in regards to taxation but perfectly legal. 2.The amount of money we make from Cigarettes is staggering, it's huge. It's public info on the government. Tobacco is a big product in this country, know whats the biggest? Marijuana, thats right, according to the DEA... Marijuana is Americas biggest domestic product. The addicts that you claim we would abusing are 1.Not all drug users are addicts, personally I've tried a lot of drugs, I'm in college studying economics I don't need a daily fix of anything. But you argue the physical dependence of something like heroin, sure, It's addicting. But the amount you take can be regulated with a doctor instructing you and can be brought to a manageable level as most addicts manage to do (according to the speaker I listened to that I mentioned before) Further, "While I agree that a hit of Marijuana might not entail an immediate degradation of personal standards and well-being, I think that hard drugs like heroin are extremely harmful, even if taken only once. In fact, heroin is so dangerous because that first time is the initial high, and every fix after is an effort to return to the high of the first time. Not only that, but drugs like heroin and Crack create real, physical addictions. It's not about a psychological habit, it's about a body being hijacked by a drug and responding with real and dangerous withdrawal symptoms." Are you a doctor? No. So don't propose anything further the section "personal standards and well-being" is COMPLETELY subjective. This is a lifestyle you disagree with, that's hardly a basis for a decision. Even further...is it your business? The government should butt out of what I put in my body, I know the risks and the government should educate children about the risks so they know the real stats instead of "their buddies" telling them. If we follow your chain of reason then we should make illegal most things in our society, caffeine, aspartame, cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. You argue if something is dangerous then it should be illegal, so make up your mind. I'm sure you use one of the things I just listed... 3. We have two choices, waste billions of your tax dollars or make drugs legal and finance a way for your children to have free college education! 4.Why do you play soccer? Because you like it. Why do I take shrooms and smoke weed? Because I like it. It's my personal decision to not take anything harder, why should anyone decide what I can and can't do with my body. You must be opposed to my getting piercings, giving blood, etc. They ARE NOT in a separate category, they are completely recreational. If a casual user passes into a stage of chronic addiction then send him to an addiction clinic, or let him die, that is his personal decision. My point with that dialogue argument is that NO ONE would give up something they like unless they had a gun pointed to their head. I've tried some addicting drugs, I didn't even have a twinge of a desire to try them again the next day. Because of the illegal status of drugs, the only users of drugs you hear about are addicts and dealers, you hear nothing of the casual users who 1. don't get addicted 2. get caught. Never of the others, and anyway it's NO ONE'S BUSINESS WHAT I PUT IN MY BODY! 5.Evaluate the sources of the studies that those websites quote. It's extremely ignorant of you to dismiss them so quickly. The point is that the government is lying to us with their ads and trying to turn us off to drugs through propaganda. I didn't send you to propaganda data. I sent you to propaganda websites that quote REAL Studies. Read through the articles and find the original source, I believe the fox news one was from quite a prestigious institute. OH! The Journal of the National cancer institute..... THAT'S REALLY UNCREDITED!! 6. I will reiterate, guns are not completely legal. They are illegal to own without permits, and they are illegal to posses certain genres of guns. Alcohol is "legal" why do people like to drink ever clear and absinthe? Because the government regulates it. If something is COMPLETELY LEGAL with NO restrictions then the black market will dissappear because there will be no need for it to exist. Norm Stamper DOES constitute an argument, as one of the police officers dealing with drugs and the chief of police of one of the drug capitals of the world I think he would have the authority to rule yes or no on the legalization debate. I'm sure you could present 1 million and 1. But 1 million and 1 people proposing xyz are not right because of numbers. 1 million and 1 people can be wrong. 1 expert vs. 1 million and 1 people who don't like drugs. Also, Norm is a part of LEAP a national organization, I recommend reading up. Bottom line, the government has no role telling me what I can and cannot do with my own person (up until I endanger someone by DUI or something) this doctrine is otherwise known as natural liberty. If I do not infringe upon the rights of others then my rights shall not be infringed against. Ladies and gentlemen, in the interest of saving our government money, releasing good americans from prison who should never of been sent there, and being able to enjoy my free time, I strongly encourage you all to vote pro.

Harboggles

1.Why does a black market exist for hand guns? Because they aren't completely legal, they are restricted with permits in regards to type (automatics for example) and the quantity owned. For example, most civilians cannot attain a sniper rifle capable of blowing a hole in a tank from 2 miles away. That makes sense, most don't need that capability. Now, imagine if it was perfectly legal to sell that sniper rifle...the black market would not need to exist. The REASON that the black market exists is because there is underground demand. By bringing the demand aboveground vendors are safe and in the daylight where cops are around and people can get them. Now, there will always be people who 1. want a gun that is "off the grid" those are what we call Career criminals, murderers, thiefs, etc. Or, those who want a gun tax free, that market will ALWAYS exist. Drugs are underground because ANY form of possession is illegal under the federal government. If they were legalized people would buy from their local tobacconist and get doses of controlled purities. Yes there would be people growing marijuana/poppies/coca plants at home that would be "under the table" in regards to taxation but perfectly legal. 2.The amount of money we make from Cigarettes is staggering, it's huge. It's public info on the government. Tobacco is a big product in this country, know whats the biggest? Marijuana, thats right, according to the DEA... Marijuana is Americas biggest domestic product. The addicts that you claim we would abusing are 1.Not all drug users are addicts, personally I've tried a lot of drugs, I'm in college studying economics I don't need a daily fix of anything. But you argue the physical dependence of something like heroin, sure, It's addicting. But the amount you take can be regulated with a doctor instructing you and can be brought to a manageable level as most addicts manage to do (according to the speaker I listened to that I mentioned before) Further, "While I agree that a hit of Marijuana might not entail an immediate degradation of personal standards and well-being, I think that hard drugs like heroin are extremely harmful, even if taken only once. In fact, heroin is so dangerous because that first time is the initial high, and every fix after is an effort to return to the high of the first time. Not only that, but drugs like heroin and Crack create real, physical addictions. It's not about a psychological habit, it's about a body being hijacked by a drug and responding with real and dangerous withdrawal symptoms." Are you a doctor? No. So don't propose anything further the section "personal standards and well-being" is COMPLETELY subjective. This is a lifestyle you disagree with, that's hardly a basis for a decision. Even further...is it your business? The government should butt out of what I put in my body, I know the risks and the government should educate children about the risks so they know the real stats instead of "their buddies" telling them. If we follow your chain of reason then we should make illegal most things in our society, caffeine, aspartame, cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. You argue if something is dangerous then it should be illegal, so make up your mind. I'm sure you use one of the things I just listed... 3. We have two choices, waste billions of your tax dollars or make drugs legal and finance a way for your children to have free college education! 4.Why do you play soccer? Because you like it. Why do I take shrooms and smoke weed? Because I like it. It's my personal decision to not take anything harder, why should anyone decide what I can and can't do with my body. You must be opposed to my getting piercings, giving blood, etc. They ARE NOT in a separate category, they are completely recreational. If a casual user passes into a stage of chronic addiction then send him to an addiction clinic, or let him die, that is his personal decision. My point with that dialogue argument is that NO ONE would give up something they like unless they had a gun pointed to their head. I've tried some addicting drugs, I didn't even have a twinge of a desire to try them again the next day. Because of the illegal status of drugs, the only users of drugs you hear about are addicts and dealers, you hear nothing of the casual users who 1. don't get addicted 2. get caught. Never of the others, and anyway it's NO ONE'S BUSINESS WHAT I PUT IN MY BODY! 5.Evaluate the sources of the studies that those websites quote. It's extremely ignorant of you to dismiss them so quickly. The point is that the government is lying to us with their ads and trying to turn us off to drugs through propaganda. I didn't send you to propaganda data. I sent you to propaganda websites that quote REAL Studies. Read through the articles and find the original source, I believe the fox news one was from quite a prestigious institute. OH! The Journal of the National cancer institute..... THAT'S REALLY UNCREDITED!! 6. I will reiterate, guns are not completely legal. They are illegal to own without permits, and they are illegal to posses certain genres of guns. Alcohol is "legal" why do people like to drink ever clear and absinthe? Because the government regulates it. If something is COMPLETELY LEGAL with NO restrictions then the black market will dissappear because there will be no need for it to exist. Norm Stamper DOES constitute an argument, as one of the police officers dealing with drugs and the chief of police of one of the drug capitals of the world I think he would have the authority to rule yes or no on the legalization debate. I'm sure you could present 1 million and 1. But 1 million and 1 people proposing xyz are not right because of numbers. 1 million and 1 people can be wrong. 1 expert vs. 1 million and 1 people who don't like drugs. Also, Norm is a part of LEAP a national organization, I recommend reading up. Bottom line, the government has no role telling me what I can and cannot do with my own person (up until I endanger someone by DUI or something) this doctrine is otherwise known as natural liberty. If I do not infringe upon the rights of others then my rights shall not be infringed against. Ladies and gentlemen, in the interest of saving our government money, releasing good americans from prison who should never of been sent there, and being able to enjoy my free time, I strongly encourage you all to vote pro.

Society

All-drugs-should-be-legalized./2/

Weighing mechanism: As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. When weighing the round, the judges should decide whether my opponent has proven that firearm legality has more benefits than detriments. As such, pretend he is actually affirming the resolution "firearm ownership should be allowed." He must win his case to win the round. Since the topic is non-U.S. specific and theoretical ("should" not "could"), Constitutionality arguments should be excluded. A firearm ban among the general populace would necessarily carve out exceptions for the military and certain special police units (like SWAT teams). Since this is a controversial topic, I implore my judges to set their personal beliefs aside and evaluate only who did the better debating, since debaters are often forced to defend positions they do not agree with. 1. Effect on homicide rates It is widely accepted that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger. The same applies to being killed by a firearm. Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder because as far as homicides go, you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a stranger. According to an article in University of Chicago Law Review by Frank Zimring, a criminology expert at UC Berkeley, more than two-thirds of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, friends, or neighbors. [1] Zimring examines crime statistics in Chicago and breaks the numbers down by type of weapon, number of wounds, and location of the wounds. He finds that when the wound location was clearly intended to cause death, the use of a firearm instead of the next deadliest weapon (a knife) increased the chance of death of the victim by a factor of 5. This is called the "instrumentality effect" of guns. In a broader analysis in Guns in America, Zimring and Hawkins continue to debunk the myth that if guns were not widely available, people would just find another way to kill each other (the classic "guns don't kill people, people do" argument). They point out that "if this were so, knife attacks in cities where guns were not so widely used would show a higher fatality rate" due to the expected substitution effect. But no such trend exists. Guns simply facilitate certain killings that would otherwise not be possible. As an example, Zimring and Hawkins explain that since guns are both more deadly and more versatile (can be used from a distance), they are used almost exclusively in police killings. Lastly, Zimring/Hawkins cite another study proving the instrumentality effect of guns: comparing wounds in the same location, attacks with higher caliber guns were much more likely to result in death than attacks with lower caliber guns. [2] Without guns, altercations (usually between family members, neighbors, and friends) would be much less likely to result in a fatal injury. In addition, a study by Kellerman (1993) found that people were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one, further underscoring the predominance of family/friend murders among the homicide statistics. [3] For the same reason, a regression analysis done by Mark Duggan in "More Guns, More Crime" found that looking at time lag data, local increases in gun ownership are soon followed by localized increases in homicide rates. [4] To understand the next study, we must first explore an important legal distinction. A common misconception is that "assault" means an attack. However, in terms of the legal definition, "battery" means a violent attack and "assault" is a THREAT of bodily harm. Normally, an assault should result in nothing more than a heated argument, but the presence of a gun makes it much more likely than an assault will turn deadly. Zimring (2004) found that assaults (read: threats) were 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor possessed a firearm. [5] All of the above studies combine to show that a gun ban would result in fewer homicides. 2. Price elasticity A ban on all guns would necessarily drive up the price of purchasing a gun because legal producers have many advantages over illegal producers, such as the ability to operate large factories that enjoy economies of scale and mass production technology. For this reason, most guns on the black market actually come from legal sources. 90% of the guns used by the cartels in Mexico actually originated from legal dealers in the United States. [6] In addition, a study commissioned by Senator Chuck Schumer found that 9 out of 10 guns used in crime originated in the legal market, and in fact pinpointed 140 gun stores that were responsible for selling 20% of all the weapons that eventually ended up on the black market. [7] For all these reasons, a gun ban would drastically reduce the supply of guns and make the remaining guns much more expensive. In economics, there are goods where the demand is inelastic (people are not very sensitive to price) and where demand is elastic (people are very price sensitive and are likely to switch to another similar product [a substitute good] if the price rises). A number of scholars have measured demand for guns and found that the demand is elastic, meaning when price goes up significantly, people either stop buying guns or shift to another related product (a knife, axe, pepper spray). McDowell (1983): "gun demand is income elastic"; Epstein (1999): "the demand for guns is elastic"; Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006): "elasticity of demand for guns is very high." [8] "Philip Cook, a Professor of Economics from Duke University, noted . . . 'Criminals' demand for guns is elastic, . . . and to decrease gun violence, we must make guns a liability for criminals, rather than the best, most cost-efficient weapon available.'" [9] Lastly, Bice and Hemley (2002) find that: "The demand for handguns is elastic; a 1 percent increase in the price of handguns lowers the quantity demanded by 2-3 percent." [10] By this calculation, a roughly 50% increase in gun prices would effectively eliminate demand. In addition, a gun ban would make bullets significantly more expensive because bullets could no longer be mass-produced in large factories. "Bullet control" can be even more effective than "gun control." In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Although cottage industries can produce small numbers of guns, they cannot possibly create large numbers of bullets. With a gun ban, bullet prices could soar to the point where Chris Rock's vision is realized, where bullets are no longer affordable, even though guns might be. Bullet bans have empirically been more effective than gun bans, such as the ban on civilian ownership of armor piercing bullets. Countries would start adding "gun enhancement" laws to their books, as well. The laws would state that dealing illegal guns would be punished by life in prison, and using a gun in a crime (like robbery) could change the sentence from a 5-year sentence to life in prison. This would deter gun use in a world where guns are banned. Lastly, depriving non-state groups of guns (by making guns and bullets too expensive) would solve militia problems, such as in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, such as the Taliban. 500,000 people are killed worldwide each year by guns. [11] [1] <URL>... [2] Guns in America: A Reader, page 219 [3] New England Journal of Medicine, Volume <PHONE>, October 7, 1993 [4] Journal of Political Economy, 2001, vol. 109, no. 5 [5] Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 32 [6] <URL>... [7] NY Times, Criminals Black Market in Guns Detailed [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] U Chicago, Journal of Law & Economics

bluesteel

Weighing mechanism: As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. When weighing the round, the judges should decide whether my opponent has proven that firearm legality has more benefits than detriments. As such, pretend he is actually affirming the resolution "firearm ownership should be allowed." He must win his case to win the round. Since the topic is non-U.S. specific and theoretical ("should" not "could"), Constitutionality arguments should be excluded. A firearm ban among the general populace would necessarily carve out exceptions for the military and certain special police units (like SWAT teams). Since this is a controversial topic, I implore my judges to set their personal beliefs aside and evaluate only who did the better debating, since debaters are often forced to defend positions they do not agree with. 1. Effect on homicide rates It is widely accepted that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger. The same applies to being killed by a firearm. Guns in the home are far more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder because as far as homicides go, you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a stranger. According to an article in University of Chicago Law Review by Frank Zimring, a criminology expert at UC Berkeley, more than two-thirds of killings are caused by spouses, lovers, friends, or neighbors. [1] Zimring examines crime statistics in Chicago and breaks the numbers down by type of weapon, number of wounds, and location of the wounds. He finds that when the wound location was clearly intended to cause death, the use of a firearm instead of the next deadliest weapon (a knife) increased the chance of death of the victim by a factor of 5. This is called the "instrumentality effect" of guns. In a broader analysis in Guns in America, Zimring and Hawkins continue to debunk the myth that if guns were not widely available, people would just find another way to kill each other (the classic "guns don't kill people, people do" argument). They point out that "if this were so, knife attacks in cities where guns were not so widely used would show a higher fatality rate" due to the expected substitution effect. But no such trend exists. Guns simply facilitate certain killings that would otherwise not be possible. As an example, Zimring and Hawkins explain that since guns are both more deadly and more versatile (can be used from a distance), they are used almost exclusively in police killings. Lastly, Zimring/Hawkins cite another study proving the instrumentality effect of guns: comparing wounds in the same location, attacks with higher caliber guns were much more likely to result in death than attacks with lower caliber guns. [2] Without guns, altercations (usually between family members, neighbors, and friends) would be much less likely to result in a fatal injury. In addition, a study by Kellerman (1993) found that people were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than in a home without one, further underscoring the predominance of family/friend murders among the homicide statistics. [3] For the same reason, a regression analysis done by Mark Duggan in "More Guns, More Crime" found that looking at time lag data, local increases in gun ownership are soon followed by localized increases in homicide rates. [4] To understand the next study, we must first explore an important legal distinction. A common misconception is that "assault" means an attack. However, in terms of the legal definition, "battery" means a violent attack and "assault" is a THREAT of bodily harm. Normally, an assault should result in nothing more than a heated argument, but the presence of a gun makes it much more likely than an assault will turn deadly. Zimring (2004) found that assaults (read: threats) were 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor possessed a firearm. [5] All of the above studies combine to show that a gun ban would result in fewer homicides. 2. Price elasticity A ban on all guns would necessarily drive up the price of purchasing a gun because legal producers have many advantages over illegal producers, such as the ability to operate large factories that enjoy economies of scale and mass production technology. For this reason, most guns on the black market actually come from legal sources. 90% of the guns used by the cartels in Mexico actually originated from legal dealers in the United States. [6] In addition, a study commissioned by Senator Chuck Schumer found that 9 out of 10 guns used in crime originated in the legal market, and in fact pinpointed 140 gun stores that were responsible for selling 20% of all the weapons that eventually ended up on the black market. [7] For all these reasons, a gun ban would drastically reduce the supply of guns and make the remaining guns much more expensive. In economics, there are goods where the demand is inelastic (people are not very sensitive to price) and where demand is elastic (people are very price sensitive and are likely to switch to another similar product [a substitute good] if the price rises). A number of scholars have measured demand for guns and found that the demand is elastic, meaning when price goes up significantly, people either stop buying guns or shift to another related product (a knife, axe, pepper spray). McDowell (1983): "gun demand is income elastic"; Epstein (1999): "the demand for guns is elastic"; Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006): "elasticity of demand for guns is very high." [8] "Philip Cook, a Professor of Economics from Duke University, noted . . . ‘Criminals' demand for guns is elastic, . . . and to decrease gun violence, we must make guns a liability for criminals, rather than the best, most cost-efficient weapon available.'" [9] Lastly, Bice and Hemley (2002) find that: "The demand for handguns is elastic; a 1 percent increase in the price of handguns lowers the quantity demanded by 2-3 percent." [10] By this calculation, a roughly 50% increase in gun prices would effectively eliminate demand. In addition, a gun ban would make bullets significantly more expensive because bullets could no longer be mass-produced in large factories. "Bullet control" can be even more effective than "gun control." In the immortal words of Chris Rock, "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Although cottage industries can produce small numbers of guns, they cannot possibly create large numbers of bullets. With a gun ban, bullet prices could soar to the point where Chris Rock's vision is realized, where bullets are no longer affordable, even though guns might be. Bullet bans have empirically been more effective than gun bans, such as the ban on civilian ownership of armor piercing bullets. Countries would start adding "gun enhancement" laws to their books, as well. The laws would state that dealing illegal guns would be punished by life in prison, and using a gun in a crime (like robbery) could change the sentence from a 5-year sentence to life in prison. This would deter gun use in a world where guns are banned. Lastly, depriving non-state groups of guns (by making guns and bullets too expensive) would solve militia problems, such as in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, such as the Taliban. 500,000 people are killed worldwide each year by guns. [11] [1] http://www.saf.org... [2] Guns in America: A Reader, page 219 [3] New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 1084-1091, October 7, 1993 [4] Journal of Political Economy, 2001, vol. 109, no. 5 [5] Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 32 [6] http://www.vpc.org... [7] NY Times, Criminals Black Market in Guns Detailed [8] http://cowles.econ.yale.edu... [9] http://www.udel.edu... [10] U Chicago, Journal of Law & Economics

Politics

All-firearms-should-be-banned./1/

2.5 million self-defense episodes with guns per year This is really the only positive benefit my opponent has demonstrated from guns. However, his own arguments prove why these numbers cannot possibly be true. If guns are so dramatically necessary as a deterrent against crimes, studies should show massive increases in violence in cities that ban or restrict gun ownership, like Chicago. However, these cities follow broader crime trends in the rest of the nation (crime is cyclical and empirically relates to trends in poverty/demographics). In addition, this 2.5 million number, widely touted by the pro-gun lobby, is preposterous. It is based on a survey done by Gary Kleck, asking people to self-report how often they used their guns in self-defense. According to The Times Online (UK), "Of nearly 5,000 American adults polled, 1.326 percent -- or 66 -- were determined by Kleck to have relied on guns for personal protection against criminals in the previous year. The rest is basic math -- too basic, some statisticians argue. Take 1.326 percent of all U.S. adults not incarcerated, and you arrive at the conclusion that Americans use their guns 2.5 million times a year for defense." [1] However, a similar survey that actually asked respondents to describe their "self-defense" episodes found that most of the episodes were actually "hostile gun displays" such as a gang flashing their guns at another gang (supposedly to "deter a fight"). The Times Online continues: "'Who knows what 'self-defense' means?' asked David Hemenway of Harvard University's Injury Control Center. For instance, a thug who shoots in a gang clash might argue he was just defending himself, Hemenway said. So Hemenway crafted surveys of his own. From interviews conducted in 1996 and 1999 involving about 4,500 total respondents, Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were 'hostile gun displays' rather than 'socially desirable' moves to halt a crime. Hemenway recently flipped through stories told by respondents describing their acts of self-defense. Here's one: 'The police called. The alarm in my building went off so I went there to shut it off. Two men were outside my building, so from my car I shot at the ground near them.' Hemenway paused. 'That's self-defense?' he asked. 'Here's another,' the researcher said. 'A 58-year-old male is watching TV with a holster strapped on him. He tells us, 'I was watching a movie, and he (an acquaintance) interrupted me. I yelled that I was going to shoot him, and he ran to his car.' 'I'm thinking, are these the best stories they can tell?' Hemenway said." [2] So these 2.5 million self-defense episodes per year are actually extrapolated from a survey where 66 people claimed to have used their guns in self-defense, without providing the scenario for what they defined as "self-defense." Surveys that ask respondents to explain what they mean by self-defense find that the majority of the self-defense episodes were actually hostile gun displays. A gun ban would reduce homicides: My opponent takes issue with the widely acknowledged fact that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than someone you do not. Not only does this make intuitive sense, since strangers are not as likely to have a strong motive for killing each other, but it is also backed up by all the data. The FBI crime statistics record all homicides with a category for "relationship to the victim." The overwhelming majority of murders are "non-stranger" murders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, examining national data from between <PHONE>, in only 14% of all murders were the victim and the offender "strangers." The vast majority of murders were executed by a "spouse, other family, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other acquaintance." [3] The logical conclusion is that a gun ban makes it much less likely that a heated argument between a spouse, lover, or friend will turn into a deadly altercation. My opponent has no response to the Zimring (2003) evidence that assaults (threats/arguments) are 7 times more likely to turn deadly if a gun is involved. He also has no response to the Kellerman (1993) evidence that people are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than one without a firearm. Kellerman excludes "self-defense" homicides from this calculation. Illicit guns: My opponent points out that when a gun ban occurs, many bullets and guns will still exist from previous legal production. I acknowledge that a gun ban would not result in the immediate disappearance of all guns. However, police routinely seize large black market gun shipments and destroy the guns in a furnace. As the world adopts such a standard with both guns and bullets, within 10-20 years, most non-military, non-police guns and bullets will have been destroyed, driving up the price to such an extent that criminals can no longer afford the weapons. My opponent takes issue with not all police having guns. This is fine. A gun ban would allow each country to choose what non-civilian exceptions to adopt. I merely described the system England currently employs. My opponent claims that there are anywhere between 12 and 36 billion guns worldwide (no citation). This is empirically false. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, there are roughly 640 million guns worldwide, 40% of which are operated by government militaries. [4] Considering that there are roughly 7 billion people on the planet, and thus only 5.5% of them own a gun, a concerted long-term effort to disarm citizens, disrupt illegal drugs sales, and drive up the cost of guns (through harsher sentencing laws) should be effective. My opponent has no answer to my harsher sentencing laws argument, that if a "gun enhancement" meant an automatic life sentence if a gun was used in commission of a crime (regardless of the crime committed) much fewer people would commit such crimes. In addition, harsh sentences for gun smugglers would deter them from gun smuggling (Chaudri and Geanakoplos of Yale say they would likely turn to drug smuggling if gun smuggling became too difficult). My opponent says, "Some manufacturers may even develop a way to once again effectively mass produce bullets and guns." However, they would make easy targets for the military/police if they were mass-producing guns in a giant factory. My opponent then does some analysis that since drugs are illegal and still bought (despite prices being drive up), then the same must be true of guns. However, first, this disproves his own argument: if drug smuggling is more profitable than gun/bullet smuggling, people will engage in the former and not the latter. In addition, the demand for drugs is inelastic (addicts are willing to pay anything to get a "fix" and are not price sensitive). However, I cite 5 studies proving that the demand for guns is very price sensitive (elastic): McDowell (1983), Epstein (1999), Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006), Cook (2004), and Bice and Hemley (2002). In fact, Cook has shown that due to high local prices, "Guns are quite scarce in some American cities, and scarcity reduces gun use in crime." Lastly, empirical evidence shows that drug legalization could makes drugs up to 5 times cheaper, which shows you what a comparative "illegality premium" might look for guns and bullets. If guns and bullets were 5 times more expensive 10 years from now, their use would effectively stop, based on the price elasticity of the demand for guns calculated by Bice and Hemley. Much more expensive guns as well as a newly legitimate effort to disarm non-state groups would solve genocides like in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. My opponent has yet to show any sort of good impact for guns that could outweigh this benefit. [1] <URL>... [2] Ibid [3

bluesteel

2.5 million self-defense episodes with guns per year This is really the only positive benefit my opponent has demonstrated from guns. However, his own arguments prove why these numbers cannot possibly be true. If guns are so dramatically necessary as a deterrent against crimes, studies should show massive increases in violence in cities that ban or restrict gun ownership, like Chicago. However, these cities follow broader crime trends in the rest of the nation (crime is cyclical and empirically relates to trends in poverty/demographics). In addition, this 2.5 million number, widely touted by the pro-gun lobby, is preposterous. It is based on a survey done by Gary Kleck, asking people to self-report how often they used their guns in self-defense. According to The Times Online (UK), "Of nearly 5,000 American adults polled, 1.326 percent -- or 66 -- were determined by Kleck to have relied on guns for personal protection against criminals in the previous year. The rest is basic math -- too basic, some statisticians argue. Take 1.326 percent of all U.S. adults not incarcerated, and you arrive at the conclusion that Americans use their guns 2.5 million times a year for defense." [1] However, a similar survey that actually asked respondents to describe their "self-defense" episodes found that most of the episodes were actually "hostile gun displays" such as a gang flashing their guns at another gang (supposedly to "deter a fight"). The Times Online continues: "‘Who knows what `self-defense' means?' asked David Hemenway of Harvard University's Injury Control Center. For instance, a thug who shoots in a gang clash might argue he was just defending himself, Hemenway said. So Hemenway crafted surveys of his own. From interviews conducted in 1996 and 1999 involving about 4,500 total respondents, Hemenway found that most acknowledged acts of self-defense were ‘hostile gun displays' rather than ‘socially desirable' moves to halt a crime. Hemenway recently flipped through stories told by respondents describing their acts of self-defense. Here's one: `The police called. The alarm in my building went off so I went there to shut it off. Two men were outside my building, so from my car I shot at the ground near them.' Hemenway paused. ‘That's self-defense?' he asked. ‘Here's another,' the researcher said. ‘A 58-year-old male is watching TV with a holster strapped on him. He tells us, `I was watching a movie, and he (an acquaintance) interrupted me. I yelled that I was going to shoot him, and he ran to his car.' ‘I'm thinking, are these the best stories they can tell?' Hemenway said." [2] So these 2.5 million self-defense episodes per year are actually extrapolated from a survey where 66 people claimed to have used their guns in self-defense, without providing the scenario for what they defined as "self-defense." Surveys that ask respondents to explain what they mean by self-defense find that the majority of the self-defense episodes were actually hostile gun displays. A gun ban would reduce homicides: My opponent takes issue with the widely acknowledged fact that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than someone you do not. Not only does this make intuitive sense, since strangers are not as likely to have a strong motive for killing each other, but it is also backed up by all the data. The FBI crime statistics record all homicides with a category for "relationship to the victim." The overwhelming majority of murders are "non-stranger" murders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, examining national data from between 1976-2005, in only 14% of all murders were the victim and the offender "strangers." The vast majority of murders were executed by a "spouse, other family, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other acquaintance." [3] The logical conclusion is that a gun ban makes it much less likely that a heated argument between a spouse, lover, or friend will turn into a deadly altercation. My opponent has no response to the Zimring (2003) evidence that assaults (threats/arguments) are 7 times more likely to turn deadly if a gun is involved. He also has no response to the Kellerman (1993) evidence that people are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered in a home with a firearm than one without a firearm. Kellerman excludes "self-defense" homicides from this calculation. Illicit guns: My opponent points out that when a gun ban occurs, many bullets and guns will still exist from previous legal production. I acknowledge that a gun ban would not result in the immediate disappearance of all guns. However, police routinely seize large black market gun shipments and destroy the guns in a furnace. As the world adopts such a standard with both guns and bullets, within 10-20 years, most non-military, non-police guns and bullets will have been destroyed, driving up the price to such an extent that criminals can no longer afford the weapons. My opponent takes issue with not all police having guns. This is fine. A gun ban would allow each country to choose what non-civilian exceptions to adopt. I merely described the system England currently employs. My opponent claims that there are anywhere between 12 and 36 billion guns worldwide (no citation). This is empirically false. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, there are roughly 640 million guns worldwide, 40% of which are operated by government militaries. [4] Considering that there are roughly 7 billion people on the planet, and thus only 5.5% of them own a gun, a concerted long-term effort to disarm citizens, disrupt illegal drugs sales, and drive up the cost of guns (through harsher sentencing laws) should be effective. My opponent has no answer to my harsher sentencing laws argument, that if a "gun enhancement" meant an automatic life sentence if a gun was used in commission of a crime (regardless of the crime committed) much fewer people would commit such crimes. In addition, harsh sentences for gun smugglers would deter them from gun smuggling (Chaudri and Geanakoplos of Yale say they would likely turn to drug smuggling if gun smuggling became too difficult). My opponent says, "Some manufacturers may even develop a way to once again effectively mass produce bullets and guns." However, they would make easy targets for the military/police if they were mass-producing guns in a giant factory. My opponent then does some analysis that since drugs are illegal and still bought (despite prices being drive up), then the same must be true of guns. However, first, this disproves his own argument: if drug smuggling is more profitable than gun/bullet smuggling, people will engage in the former and not the latter. In addition, the demand for drugs is inelastic (addicts are willing to pay anything to get a "fix" and are not price sensitive). However, I cite 5 studies proving that the demand for guns is very price sensitive (elastic): McDowell (1983), Epstein (1999), Chaudhri and Geanakoplos (2006), Cook (2004), and Bice and Hemley (2002). In fact, Cook has shown that due to high local prices, "Guns are quite scarce in some American cities, and scarcity reduces gun use in crime." Lastly, empirical evidence shows that drug legalization could makes drugs up to 5 times cheaper, which shows you what a comparative "illegality premium" might look for guns and bullets. If guns and bullets were 5 times more expensive 10 years from now, their use would effectively stop, based on the price elasticity of the demand for guns calculated by Bice and Hemley. Much more expensive guns as well as a newly legitimate effort to disarm non-state groups would solve genocides like in Sudan and would solve insurgencies, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. My opponent has yet to show any sort of good impact for guns that could outweigh this benefit. [1] http://www.thehighroad.us... [2] Ibid [3

Politics

All-firearms-should-be-banned./1/

I thank my opponent for a fun and civil debate. I begin by refuting my opponent's arguments. My opponent's Kellerman indict is true of Kellerman's statistic that "you are 22 times more likely to be shot by the gun in your own home than use the gun to shoot an intruder." The same indict, however, does not apply to the statistic that "people are 2.7 times more likely be killed in a home with a handgun than one without." A methodology problem in one area of a study (the self-defense section) does not invalidate the entire study. My opponent points out that other things besides guns kill people. Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. If the topic were: the U.S. should legalize private ownership of nuclear weapons, my opponent could point out that cars and tobacco have killed far more people than nukes have. That is not a good reason to legalize private ownership of nukes. In addition, applying a utilitarian framework: cars have more benefit than detriments in terms of ease of transportation and productivity gains in the commute to work. In addition, I refer you to an example my opponent used in a previous round: "it is impossible to drown without water" (arguing that guns are just a tool). However, the benefits of water (the ability for all of us to live, instead of dying from thirst) outweigh the harms of drowning. My opponent has yet to prove that the benefits from guns outweigh the harms (500,000 deaths per year). Self defense First, it needs clarifying that the Zimring (2003) evidence is saying that when the AGGRESSOR during an assault (threat/argument) has a gun, the victim is 7 times more likely to die. This turns my opponent's point against him. A 120-pound woman has a better chance against a 250-pound wrestler husband than she does against a 250-pound wrester husband who is pointing a gun at her head (note: men have much higher gun ownership rates and are also much more likely to be the aggressor in an altercation). My opponent points out that the aggressor could use other instruments, but remember the instrumentality effect of guns (guns are more deadly). Zimring actually finds that in many cases of single bullet wounds, the attacker regrets his or her action. An impulsive (and later regretted) knife slash is much less likely to result in death than an impulsive (and later regretted) finger pull on the trigger of a gun (because guns are much more lethal). Secondly, my opponent does not answer the crux of my argument: self defense as a justification for gun legality presumes that the two primary usages for guns are 1) self-defense and 2) criminals trying to kill/harm us. These assumptions are not true considering that 86% of homicides are committed by a spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, family member, or acquaintance. Therefore, removing guns from the household make it less likely that someone close to us will accidentally or purposely shoot us during a heated argument. My opponent claims, "An almost guaranteed assumption would be that gun owners will not go down without a fight." According to Time Magazine in "Locked & Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias," the number of people who join private militias and would/could seriously defend their right to bear arms are a tiny fraction of gun owners. They would not fair well against U.S. military tanks, drones, and close air support. Our military's superior technology is what allowed us to easily take over Afghanistan and Iraq during the initial stages of the invasions. A few high-profile displays against extreme private militia groups (using all our military's firepower, if they refused to acquiesce) would quickly convince all gun owners to give up their weapons without a fight. Lastly, my opponent points out that: "both my opponent and I are speculating" when it comes to the black market. While my opponent's arguments in this area are actually pure speculation, I would rather term my analysis "informed conjecture." I base my predictions on 5 different studies showing that the demand for guns is elastic, meaning that when prices go up, people buy fewer guns. Cook even went to cities, like Chicago, where illegal guns are hard to buy and expensive, due to strong gun control laws, and found that due to higher prices, far fewer guns were used in crime. Because demand for guns is elastic but demand for drugs is inelastic, smugglers would find drug running much more profitable than gun-running, and the number of black market guns would quickly shrink. Round summary: When evaluating this round, you as the judge should remember that my opponent (the instigator) has the burden of proving that guns should be legal. You should weigh the round using a utilitarian framework: would banning all guns result in the greatest good done for the greatest number. My opponent has nothing on his side of debate at the end of the round, except one vague anecdotal example of a gun that was used in self-defense. With his "2.5 million self-defenses" number completely debunked, it is impossible for us to know, as far as this debate goes, how many legitimate self-defenses there are each year using guns. In fact, most of those 2.5 million "self-defenses" are actually a reason to vote for my side of the debate: upon further review, a majority of them were actually dangerous incidents, such as gang brandishing or aggressive threats using a gun (Hemenway). Without an exact number to weigh, my opponent cannot make a case against the 500,000 lives per year that could be saved by banning guns. My opponent agrees that most homicides are committed by people we know, not strangers. He also agrees with the Zimring (2003) evidence that when the aggressor has a gun, a verbal altercation is 7 times more likely to turn deadly. Therefore, my opponent agrees with the analysis of why having a gun in your house makes you more likely to die than not having a gun in the home: because when family/friends fight and the fights get extremely heated, it is much safer when there are no exceedingly deadly objects (like guns) nearby. A gun ban would prevent countless such homicides from occurring. In addition, my opponent agrees with my analysis that within 10-20 years, guns can be largely eliminated from the world. By passing gun enhancement laws, countries can dissuade criminals from using guns (automatic life in prison) and from selling illegal guns (automatic life in prison). Because fewer people would be willing to sell guns (especially since drugs would be more profitable and a lighter prison sentence), the number of illegal firearm dealers would decline immensely, shrinking supply. As gun shipments are captured/destroyed and legal factories are shut down, the global supply of guns/bullets will further diminish, drastically driving up the price of guns/bullets. Because purchasers of guns are price sensitive (according to 5 studies), when prices massively rise, people will choose to pursue other sorts of weaponry or forgo buying a weapon altogether. When the price of guns on the black market has soared to astronomical levels, non-state groups (like the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Taliban in Afghanistan) can be disarmed and will not be able to purchase new weapons. This will solve most global conflicts, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. At the end of the day, as long as I prove that at least 2 deaths could be prevented by a gun ban, that outweighs my opponent's one anecdotal example of a self-defense occurring with a gun. And remember, self-defense would not be necessary in a world where guns become too expensive for criminals to afford or in a world where criminals are too afraid to use guns, fearing life sentences from "gun enhancement" laws. In order to achieve a gun-free (except military/police) world, I urge you to affirm. I leave you with the immortal words of Chris Rock: "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Let's make this a reality.

bluesteel

I thank my opponent for a fun and civil debate. I begin by refuting my opponent's arguments. My opponent's Kellerman indict is true of Kellerman's statistic that "you are 22 times more likely to be shot by the gun in your own home than use the gun to shoot an intruder." The same indict, however, does not apply to the statistic that "people are 2.7 times more likely be killed in a home with a handgun than one without." A methodology problem in one area of a study (the self-defense section) does not invalidate the entire study. My opponent points out that other things besides guns kill people. Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. If the topic were: the U.S. should legalize private ownership of nuclear weapons, my opponent could point out that cars and tobacco have killed far more people than nukes have. That is not a good reason to legalize private ownership of nukes. In addition, applying a utilitarian framework: cars have more benefit than detriments in terms of ease of transportation and productivity gains in the commute to work. In addition, I refer you to an example my opponent used in a previous round: "it is impossible to drown without water" (arguing that guns are just a tool). However, the benefits of water (the ability for all of us to live, instead of dying from thirst) outweigh the harms of drowning. My opponent has yet to prove that the benefits from guns outweigh the harms (500,000 deaths per year). Self defense First, it needs clarifying that the Zimring (2003) evidence is saying that when the AGGRESSOR during an assault (threat/argument) has a gun, the victim is 7 times more likely to die. This turns my opponent's point against him. A 120-pound woman has a better chance against a 250-pound wrestler husband than she does against a 250-pound wrester husband who is pointing a gun at her head (note: men have much higher gun ownership rates and are also much more likely to be the aggressor in an altercation). My opponent points out that the aggressor could use other instruments, but remember the instrumentality effect of guns (guns are more deadly). Zimring actually finds that in many cases of single bullet wounds, the attacker regrets his or her action. An impulsive (and later regretted) knife slash is much less likely to result in death than an impulsive (and later regretted) finger pull on the trigger of a gun (because guns are much more lethal). Secondly, my opponent does not answer the crux of my argument: self defense as a justification for gun legality presumes that the two primary usages for guns are 1) self-defense and 2) criminals trying to kill/harm us. These assumptions are not true considering that 86% of homicides are committed by a spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, family member, or acquaintance. Therefore, removing guns from the household make it less likely that someone close to us will accidentally or purposely shoot us during a heated argument. My opponent claims, "An almost guaranteed assumption would be that gun owners will not go down without a fight." According to Time Magazine in "Locked & Loaded: The Secret World of Extreme Militias," the number of people who join private militias and would/could seriously defend their right to bear arms are a tiny fraction of gun owners. They would not fair well against U.S. military tanks, drones, and close air support. Our military's superior technology is what allowed us to easily take over Afghanistan and Iraq during the initial stages of the invasions. A few high-profile displays against extreme private militia groups (using all our military's firepower, if they refused to acquiesce) would quickly convince all gun owners to give up their weapons without a fight. Lastly, my opponent points out that: "both my opponent and I are speculating" when it comes to the black market. While my opponent's arguments in this area are actually pure speculation, I would rather term my analysis "informed conjecture." I base my predictions on 5 different studies showing that the demand for guns is elastic, meaning that when prices go up, people buy fewer guns. Cook even went to cities, like Chicago, where illegal guns are hard to buy and expensive, due to strong gun control laws, and found that due to higher prices, far fewer guns were used in crime. Because demand for guns is elastic but demand for drugs is inelastic, smugglers would find drug running much more profitable than gun-running, and the number of black market guns would quickly shrink. Round summary: When evaluating this round, you as the judge should remember that my opponent (the instigator) has the burden of proving that guns should be legal. You should weigh the round using a utilitarian framework: would banning all guns result in the greatest good done for the greatest number. My opponent has nothing on his side of debate at the end of the round, except one vague anecdotal example of a gun that was used in self-defense. With his "2.5 million self-defenses" number completely debunked, it is impossible for us to know, as far as this debate goes, how many legitimate self-defenses there are each year using guns. In fact, most of those 2.5 million "self-defenses" are actually a reason to vote for my side of the debate: upon further review, a majority of them were actually dangerous incidents, such as gang brandishing or aggressive threats using a gun (Hemenway). Without an exact number to weigh, my opponent cannot make a case against the 500,000 lives per year that could be saved by banning guns. My opponent agrees that most homicides are committed by people we know, not strangers. He also agrees with the Zimring (2003) evidence that when the aggressor has a gun, a verbal altercation is 7 times more likely to turn deadly. Therefore, my opponent agrees with the analysis of why having a gun in your house makes you more likely to die than not having a gun in the home: because when family/friends fight and the fights get extremely heated, it is much safer when there are no exceedingly deadly objects (like guns) nearby. A gun ban would prevent countless such homicides from occurring. In addition, my opponent agrees with my analysis that within 10-20 years, guns can be largely eliminated from the world. By passing gun enhancement laws, countries can dissuade criminals from using guns (automatic life in prison) and from selling illegal guns (automatic life in prison). Because fewer people would be willing to sell guns (especially since drugs would be more profitable and a lighter prison sentence), the number of illegal firearm dealers would decline immensely, shrinking supply. As gun shipments are captured/destroyed and legal factories are shut down, the global supply of guns/bullets will further diminish, drastically driving up the price of guns/bullets. Because purchasers of guns are price sensitive (according to 5 studies), when prices massively rise, people will choose to pursue other sorts of weaponry or forgo buying a weapon altogether. When the price of guns on the black market has soared to astronomical levels, non-state groups (like the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Taliban in Afghanistan) can be disarmed and will not be able to purchase new weapons. This will solve most global conflicts, saving up to 500,000 lives per year. At the end of the day, as long as I prove that at least 2 deaths could be prevented by a gun ban, that outweighs my opponent's one anecdotal example of a self-defense occurring with a gun. And remember, self-defense would not be necessary in a world where guns become too expensive for criminals to afford or in a world where criminals are too afraid to use guns, fearing life sentences from "gun enhancement" laws. In order to achieve a gun-free (except military/police) world, I urge you to affirm. I leave you with the immortal words of Chris Rock: "if a bullet cost $5,000, there would be no more innocent bystanders." Let's make this a reality.

Politics

All-firearms-should-be-banned./1/

Candice are you on another insane tyrant?? 1st. "Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing." - As far as I am concerned anyone who is even considering producing offspring should make sure that this information is already known. 2nd. "First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations." - Sure, there already are many courses you can choose to take. <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... 3rd. "Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything." - Your 100% correct it should be recommended and responsible parents who are un-factuated about the topic probably should take a course or something to that extent. However, I am afraid that you made a vital mistake, "All first time parents should be required to take a safety class" I don't think so to me this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This would be something you see in China or Russia not the United States of America. This would be infringing on citizen privacy. The last group of people on this planet who need to be telling American citizens to mandate something like a baby course would be the government. Government needs to stay out of American homes. I put my trust in the smart American women to figure out what they need to do with their child not government officials.

Jlconservative

Candice are you on another insane tyrant?? 1st. "Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing." - As far as I am concerned anyone who is even considering producing offspring should make sure that this information is already known. 2nd. "First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations." - Sure, there already are many courses you can choose to take. http://pregnancy.about.com... http://www.mayoclinic.com... http://sonce1.nursing.sunysb.edu... http://www.babycenter.com... 3rd. "Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything." - Your 100% correct it should be recommended and responsible parents who are un-factuated about the topic probably should take a course or something to that extent. However, I am afraid that you made a vital mistake, "All first time parents should be required to take a safety class" I don't think so to me this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This would be something you see in China or Russia not the United States of America. This would be infringing on citizen privacy. The last group of people on this planet who need to be telling American citizens to mandate something like a baby course would be the government. Government needs to stay out of American homes. I put my trust in the smart American women to figure out what they need to do with their child not government officials.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

"How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do?" - Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED" When you say that I see a program that my tax dollars have to go to, where women are forced to go take this class. If they fail to attend they receive a fine or at worst get children taken away because they did not go to a stupid government program teaching parents how to raise their kids. "You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one." - Of course not, but it dose show that the courses are out there and that women who have children can decide for themselves if they need a course or not. It's not up to government it's up to the people. "Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government." - This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad. "Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed." - Of course you can paint the picture that way, but it dose not fit into personal freedom. Why should the government be able to decide if a parent is capable or not?? It is not up to them!! the classes are there the people must make their own minds up, we are not sheep Candice that need to rely on big daddy government to hold our hands. The American people have brains. "Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart." - Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.

Jlconservative

"How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do?" - Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED" When you say that I see a program that my tax dollars have to go to, where women are forced to go take this class. If they fail to attend they receive a fine or at worst get children taken away because they did not go to a stupid government program teaching parents how to raise their kids. "You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one." - Of course not, but it dose show that the courses are out there and that women who have children can decide for themselves if they need a course or not. It's not up to government it's up to the people. "Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government." - This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad. "Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed." - Of course you can paint the picture that way, but it dose not fit into personal freedom. Why should the government be able to decide if a parent is capable or not?? It is not up to them!! the classes are there the people must make their own minds up, we are not sheep Candice that need to rely on big daddy government to hold our hands. The American people have brains. "Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart." - Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing. What if your baby starts choking? Get's burned? Or has a seizure? First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations. This is a simple remedy to help babies that would otherwise be mishandled not because of lack of care, but lack of education. Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything.

candice

Why not give first time parents the knowledge they SHOULD have, upon bringing home they're new babies? You can't fix a problem you don't have any idea about fixing. What if your baby starts choking? Get's burned? Or has a seizure? First time parents need to take a course giving them knowledgeable and up to date first aid techniques, and safety information on how to handle emergency situations. This is a simple remedy to help babies that would otherwise be mishandled not because of lack of care, but lack of education. Why not sit through a couple of hours for the safety of your new offspring? It's responsible, already recommended, and wouldn't hurt anything.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do? You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one. < > Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government. Why? For the safety of our citizens. Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed. Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart. There are some IDIOTS that have offspring. Shouldn't those babies be given every little chance of health and happiness possible?

candice

How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do? You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one. < > Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government. Why? For the safety of our citizens. Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed. Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart. There are some IDIOTS that have offspring. Shouldn't those babies be given every little chance of health and happiness possible?

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

<<- Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED">> So, are you insinuating that children should not be given every chance of health and happiness because YOU think that the government shouldn't REQUIRE you to do anything? Sorry to tell you, but that's what our government is here for. To insure that we live life lawfully, and treat other's around us with care and respect. Why should American children not get the same respect, and insurance of safety and care? < > Your tax dollars will be going to SOMETHING, so why not some to that? Perhaps we could tax cigarette's more so idiot's that smoke could pay for it. This will not be a parenting class, it will a first aid, and safety class. Things that ALL parents need, and should definitely be equipped with. <<- This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad.>> I guarantee you 100% that if you legalized murder, murder rates would go up.Same of rape, same for burglary. I also guarantee you 100%, that if you made it mandatory to go to a safety class, that the survival of infants and toddlers involved in an emergency accident, or medical emergency would go up. Isn't that worth your tax dollars? More babies being safe and secure, that's worth the world! < > It might annoy those who must go to this class. Although, when an emergency happens and they know what to do... it will be worth millions. Those two hours could change your whole life. If you loose your baby, and latter find that if you knew how to handle the emergency they would otherwise be alive, it would crush you. Two hours and it can make or break your whole world. Accident's WILL happen. Some big, some small. Why not equip this country with the knowledge we SHOULD have to insure our offspring safe lives. Your right, American's do have brains. Some people aren't equiped with up to date safety techniques. The "big daddy government" wouldn't be holding your hand, it would be holding the hand of the innocent infants that cannot ask they're parents to please know what to do if they have a seizure, or stop breathing. <<- Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.>> Insulting Hillary Clinton supporters doesn't help your case, Steve. Grow up. This safety class wouldn't infringe on American's personally freedom. We would be empowering all parents to be strong, and educated on how to make all of our children safe and secure. Whatever my opponent says about personal freedom is just a ploy. Yes, or Government shouldn't tell us what to do in all aspects of our life. We can make our own parenting decisions. How does insuring the safety of these children take away freedom? How does giving a mother and father information they might HAVE to use about third degree burns on an infant hurt our freedom? What you do in an emergency is important. You could either do something that hurts, or helps. Why not make sure that we all have the information and knowledge to help. America is a great Nation. Why not make sure we all have the fundamentals on child safety. It's a small and easy step that we all NEED to take. This will make sure that those who wouldn't otherwise would get important safety techniques to help they're babies. Would you want to not pass a bill that would save babies lives because of a threat that it would invade privacy? There would be nothing but good from this program. The government doesn't make you raise your family a certain way, and they shouldn't. All this would do was insure that babies get all the chance they need to live healthy, and safely. Protecting the rights of children that deserve to live healthy, happy, and safely. That is the purpose of our Government. To protect the rights of ALL.

candice

<<- Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED">> So, are you insinuating that children should not be given every chance of health and happiness because YOU think that the government shouldn't REQUIRE you to do anything? Sorry to tell you, but that's what our government is here for. To insure that we live life lawfully, and treat other's around us with care and respect. Why should American children not get the same respect, and insurance of safety and care? < > Your tax dollars will be going to SOMETHING, so why not some to that? Perhaps we could tax cigarette's more so idiot's that smoke could pay for it. This will not be a parenting class, it will a first aid, and safety class. Things that ALL parents need, and should definitely be equipped with. <<- This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad.>> I guarantee you 100% that if you legalized murder, murder rates would go up.Same of rape, same for burglary. I also guarantee you 100%, that if you made it mandatory to go to a safety class, that the survival of infants and toddlers involved in an emergency accident, or medical emergency would go up. Isn't that worth your tax dollars? More babies being safe and secure, that's worth the world! < > It might annoy those who must go to this class. Although, when an emergency happens and they know what to do… it will be worth millions. Those two hours could change your whole life. If you loose your baby, and latter find that if you knew how to handle the emergency they would otherwise be alive, it would crush you. Two hours and it can make or break your whole world. Accident's WILL happen. Some big, some small. Why not equip this country with the knowledge we SHOULD have to insure our offspring safe lives. Your right, American's do have brains. Some people aren't equiped with up to date safety techniques. The "big daddy government" wouldn't be holding your hand, it would be holding the hand of the innocent infants that cannot ask they're parents to please know what to do if they have a seizure, or stop breathing. <<- Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.>> Insulting Hillary Clinton supporters doesn't help your case, Steve. Grow up. This safety class wouldn't infringe on American's personally freedom. We would be empowering all parents to be strong, and educated on how to make all of our children safe and secure. Whatever my opponent says about personal freedom is just a ploy. Yes, or Government shouldn't tell us what to do in all aspects of our life. We can make our own parenting decisions. How does insuring the safety of these children take away freedom? How does giving a mother and father information they might HAVE to use about third degree burns on an infant hurt our freedom? What you do in an emergency is important. You could either do something that hurts, or helps. Why not make sure that we all have the information and knowledge to help. America is a great Nation. Why not make sure we all have the fundamentals on child safety. It's a small and easy step that we all NEED to take. This will make sure that those who wouldn't otherwise would get important safety techniques to help they're babies. Would you want to not pass a bill that would save babies lives because of a threat that it would invade privacy? There would be nothing but good from this program. The government doesn't make you raise your family a certain way, and they shouldn't. All this would do was insure that babies get all the chance they need to live healthy, and safely. Protecting the rights of children that deserve to live healthy, happy, and safely. That is the purpose of our Government. To protect the rights of ALL.

Health

All-first-time-parents-should-be-required-to-take-a-safety-class-for-the-emergency-care-of-infant/1/

Thank you for creating such a debate. As you have said, I'm not gonna post any arguments until next round. However, to make things clear, for me to accept these rules you give, you must accept them too along with the consequences for not following them. Otherwise, your rules are void and I can violate them as well. To make things fair I only have one rule: You cannot add definitions after this round. It goes nicely with your second rule. Just to make things fair.

vorxxox

Thank you for creating such a debate. As you have said, I'm not gonna post any arguments until next round. However, to make things clear, for me to accept these rules you give, you must accept them too along with the consequences for not following them. Otherwise, your rules are void and I can violate them as well. To make things fair I only have one rule: You cannot add definitions after this round. It goes nicely with your second rule. Just to make things fair.

Society

All-members-of-debate.org-ought-to-provide-RFDs-in-the-debates-they-vote-in./1/

Ok then. Now, for my arguments. I negate the resolution that states that all members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in. 1. Due to the format of Debate.org votes, such a proposition would be ineffective and time consuming As stated in the first round: RFD: a reason for decision. It encompasses why you voted they way you vote, where you voted, and provides justification for all the votes you made. Now, lets observe the format of a debate.org vote. A vote is worth 6 points I believe. Each point is awarded based on the following criteria: 1. Who did you agree with before the debate? 2. Who did you agree with after the debate? 3. Who had better conduct? 4. Who had better spelling and grammar? 5. Who made more convincing arguments? 6. Who used the most reliable sources? So, the affirmative's plan is to propose that every member of Debate.org evaluates why they awarded points to either side. To my understanding in fact, they must justify ALL their votes lest they be illegit. Yet, what if both sides had perfect spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct? Unable to award a point to either side, the voters would be forced to award ties to all of those points, and their vote would count for little to no points. Also, biased points will still be inevitably awarded due to the first criteria, so how would evaluating a biased decision help the debaters improve? What does all of this solve? 2. The resolution is unfair and cannot be enforced. Such a proposition violates the privacy of voters since it will openly expose their votes and is therefore an insult to the idea of democracy. This can influence votes as well. Since all my friends voted for affirmative and I want to fit in with all my friends, I will probably vote affirmative, even though I wanted to vote negative. This can also encourage people not to vote at all. Also, exactly how would this be enforced? And who has the control over all of this? Some moderator will take extra time to read ballots 1 by 1 and will delete ballots that are "for bad reasons?" Oh, your vote didn't make enough sense, so it doesn't count. Who are they to decide? I seriously doubt they will have to explain themselves. And as for so called "vote bombers", they are labeled by the ones with authority who have the power to remove their accounts without explaining. Whosoever is the moderater will have too much power. But it doesn't matter, if the real vote bombers are smart, they can just copy and paste RFD's from their buddies and they would have nothing to worry about. Well, that's all I have for. I challange my opponent to answer all of my questions. Please vote CON Unless you want to vote pro, which doing so you have to show everyone where you put your points and you must justify it, and I get to decide whether it is "good enough." Otherwise your vote is illegit and it doesn't count. And you risk losing your account. :) Seriously though, please vote CON

vorxxox

Ok then. Now, for my arguments. I negate the resolution that states that all members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in. 1. Due to the format of Debate.org votes, such a proposition would be ineffective and time consuming As stated in the first round: RFD: a reason for decision. It encompasses why you voted they way you vote, where you voted, and provides justification for all the votes you made. Now, lets observe the format of a debate.org vote. A vote is worth 6 points I believe. Each point is awarded based on the following criteria: 1. Who did you agree with before the debate? 2. Who did you agree with after the debate? 3. Who had better conduct? 4. Who had better spelling and grammar? 5. Who made more convincing arguments? 6. Who used the most reliable sources? So, the affirmative's plan is to propose that every member of Debate.org evaluates why they awarded points to either side. To my understanding in fact, they must justify ALL their votes lest they be illegit. Yet, what if both sides had perfect spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct? Unable to award a point to either side, the voters would be forced to award ties to all of those points, and their vote would count for little to no points. Also, biased points will still be inevitably awarded due to the first criteria, so how would evaluating a biased decision help the debaters improve? What does all of this solve? 2. The resolution is unfair and cannot be enforced. Such a proposition violates the privacy of voters since it will openly expose their votes and is therefore an insult to the idea of democracy. This can influence votes as well. Since all my friends voted for affirmative and I want to fit in with all my friends, I will probably vote affirmative, even though I wanted to vote negative. This can also encourage people not to vote at all. Also, exactly how would this be enforced? And who has the control over all of this? Some moderator will take extra time to read ballots 1 by 1 and will delete ballots that are "for bad reasons?" Oh, your vote didn't make enough sense, so it doesn't count. Who are they to decide? I seriously doubt they will have to explain themselves. And as for so called "vote bombers", they are labeled by the ones with authority who have the power to remove their accounts without explaining. Whosoever is the moderater will have too much power. But it doesn't matter, if the real vote bombers are smart, they can just copy and paste RFD's from their buddies and they would have nothing to worry about. Well, that's all I have for. I challange my opponent to answer all of my questions. Please vote CON Unless you want to vote pro, which doing so you have to show everyone where you put your points and you must justify it, and I get to decide whether it is "good enough." Otherwise your vote is illegit and it doesn't count. And you risk losing your account. :) Seriously though, please vote CON

Society

All-members-of-debate.org-ought-to-provide-RFDs-in-the-debates-they-vote-in./1/

Well all have the right to self defense and a gun is protection if you know how to use it in the right way.

DanTheLawyer

Well all have the right to self defense and a gun is protection if you know how to use it in the right way.

Society

All-should-have-there-right-to-own-a-gun/2/

Well most people already do have guns and there is no stopping it. If the law but a band on all guns except for law enforcers, then the crime rate may go up and i don't think the hunters and others would be happy about giving up there guns. That may lead to a riot ,also there will always be suicide by gun, or murder, or shootings in schools because they will never get rid of all guns that are held by the public.

DanTheLawyer

Well most people already do have guns and there is no stopping it. If the law but a band on all guns except for law enforcers, then the crime rate may go up and i don't think the hunters and others would be happy about giving up there guns. That may lead to a riot ,also there will always be suicide by gun, or murder, or shootings in schools because they will never get rid of all guns that are held by the public.

Society

All-should-have-there-right-to-own-a-gun/2/

Well you say that "what if some hunter mistakes someone for a deer". Well they have hunting areas where you can only hunt and your suppose to have orange on. A gun is used to protect us from terrorists and helps fight in war. I know they shouldn't just sign a sheet of paper and say here you go, but that is why they have courses(training). I think most people should be required to take a gun safety course and be trained how to shoot one ,so if they wanted to own a gun then, they can. If they don't, that is fine. That doesn't mean they should, but a ban on guns. I like to shoot and yes i am a hunter. I like to shoot at targets and I go hunting. I eat what I kill because it isn't right to hunt for i sport and just leave the thing there for nothing. So if I didn't have a right to own a gun, then it would be harder to supply food, because not all people can supply themselves food with just money. If the president did put a ban on guns ,then the under cover cops could be arrested for owning a gun in there vehicles and if the president didn't let the police own a gun, then how would they stop raps, murders, and theft, because sometimes police are out numbered or they are not strong enough to restrain criminal's. Some do have tsars but how far can a tsar go when you try and apprehend someone? They are dangerous, but so are planes, cars, and boats. We do need them, but we also need guns for protection.

DanTheLawyer

Well you say that "what if some hunter mistakes someone for a deer". Well they have hunting areas where you can only hunt and your suppose to have orange on. A gun is used to protect us from terrorists and helps fight in war. I know they shouldn't just sign a sheet of paper and say here you go, but that is why they have courses(training). I think most people should be required to take a gun safety course and be trained how to shoot one ,so if they wanted to own a gun then, they can. If they don't, that is fine. That doesn't mean they should, but a ban on guns. I like to shoot and yes i am a hunter. I like to shoot at targets and I go hunting. I eat what I kill because it isn't right to hunt for i sport and just leave the thing there for nothing. So if I didn't have a right to own a gun, then it would be harder to supply food, because not all people can supply themselves food with just money. If the president did put a ban on guns ,then the under cover cops could be arrested for owning a gun in there vehicles and if the president didn't let the police own a gun, then how would they stop raps, murders, and theft, because sometimes police are out numbered or they are not strong enough to restrain criminal's. Some do have tsars but how far can a tsar go when you try and apprehend someone? They are dangerous, but so are planes, cars, and boats. We do need them, but we also need guns for protection.

Society

All-should-have-there-right-to-own-a-gun/2/

I don't think that's such a good idea. Did you miss the Virginia Tech shooting? If everyone had the right to own guns, which we do, there's no stopping anyone from robbing the bank and shooting someone or a teenager's suicidal attempt or school shootings, etc.

snicker_911

I don't think that's such a good idea. Did you miss the Virginia Tech shooting? If everyone had the right to own guns, which we do, there's no stopping anyone from robbing the bank and shooting someone or a teenager's suicidal attempt or school shootings, etc.

Society

All-should-have-there-right-to-own-a-gun/2/

The purpose of the gun is to kill or defend. The police should have it to protect the citizens. I think hunters should have some kind of protective license. Not something like, oh sign this, here you go. just to secure the safety of the people because what if a hunter accidently mistakes a person for a deer or something? who knows? it could happen. Like alcohol banning, it didn't work and it put up a huge riot, but I think that it could possible go either way with gun ownership, I mean, most people don't own guns anyway nor do many want to, and alcoholic drinks a little different because people drink it for pleasure. you can't really get pleasure with shooting other ppl unless you're psycho. but, i think whoever is president should try to ban gun ownership on some level and see how that goes down.

snicker_911

The purpose of the gun is to kill or defend. The police should have it to protect the citizens. I think hunters should have some kind of protective license. Not something like, oh sign this, here you go. just to secure the safety of the people because what if a hunter accidently mistakes a person for a deer or something? who knows? it could happen. Like alcohol banning, it didn't work and it put up a huge riot, but I think that it could possible go either way with gun ownership, I mean, most people don't own guns anyway nor do many want to, and alcoholic drinks a little different because people drink it for pleasure. you can't really get pleasure with shooting other ppl unless you're psycho. but, i think whoever is president should try to ban gun ownership on some level and see how that goes down.

Society

All-should-have-there-right-to-own-a-gun/2/

If we didn't have war, we wouldn't need guns and protection from terrorists...so you are suggesting everyone carries around guns just in case a terrorist breaks into a random house and kills everyone in it? there are alot of safety measures in airports and security that keep us safe from terrorists. guns are unneeded for civilians. i think police, security/body guards and obviously soldiers ONLY should be allowed to carry them. again, if we didn't have war... :/ I don't think they should be permanantely banned--again it might provoke more ppl to illegally get guns...but i think we should try and see what happens.

snicker_911

If we didn't have war, we wouldn't need guns and protection from terrorists...so you are suggesting everyone carries around guns just in case a terrorist breaks into a random house and kills everyone in it? there are alot of safety measures in airports and security that keep us safe from terrorists. guns are unneeded for civilians. i think police, security/body guards and obviously soldiers ONLY should be allowed to carry them. again, if we didn't have war... :/ I don't think they should be permanantely banned--again it might provoke more ppl to illegally get guns...but i think we should try and see what happens.

Society

All-should-have-there-right-to-own-a-gun/2/

Women who want to gain a male partnership are destined to be considered a prostitute in male dominant societies. Because most societies in this world are male dominant, this theory is true for most of the world. A woman may be considered a prostitute in one way or another. A prostitute is a person that sells his/her body in order to gain something from another. It could be money, or it could be more. There are plenty of female escorts and street walkers who choose this trade to gain money. There are plenty of women who sleep with rich men to gain their values. There are many sincere women who sleep with men to gain their affection and love. In the end, these women give up their bodies in order to gain something from men, and many times they are bamboozled into not fully receiving what they want.

Lightbright

Women who want to gain a male partnership are destined to be considered a prostitute in male dominant societies. Because most societies in this world are male dominant, this theory is true for most of the world. A woman may be considered a prostitute in one way or another. A prostitute is a person that sells his/her body in order to gain something from another. It could be money, or it could be more. There are plenty of female escorts and street walkers who choose this trade to gain money. There are plenty of women who sleep with rich men to gain their values. There are many sincere women who sleep with men to gain their affection and love. In the end, these women give up their bodies in order to gain something from men, and many times they are bamboozled into not fully receiving what they want.

Society

All-women-who-strive-to-gain-a-man-are-prostitutes-in-one-aspect-or-another/1/

Greetings. I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and extending the challenge to all debators. With formalities out of the way, let us proceed. Ladies and gentleman, notice that the resolution states "Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities." In other words, my opponent advocates uncertainty as "may" is defined as the following (according to American Heritage Dictionary): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This may 1 (ma) Pronunciation Key aux.v. Past tense might (mit) -Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice the emphasis on "may" being presented as a possibility in the example "It may rain this afternoon." If one were to prove that "it WILL rain this afternoon", one would have disproved the idea in the above assertion that there's merely a chance of it raining. With that said, I assume you all see where I'm going with this. My opponent advocates that it's merely a possibility that the amazons of themyscira engaged in homosexual activities, but I will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that they did. Now in case some of you aren't familiar with the subject, my opponent and I are discussing the amazons of themyscira. In other words, we are talking about the Amazons from the fictional series many of you know as Wonder Woman. Here is a line taken from DC comics database: "They live in a world where homosexuality is completely accepted -- while some Amazons are chaste, others have loving consorts." <URL>... Further confirmation? Sure thing. In the Paradise lost story arc, Phil Jimenez confirms that the amazons resorted to one of the following (as suggested by Wonder Women herself): 1) Some embark on homosexual relationships. 2) Some of them turn to masturbation. 3) Some of them abstain altogether. The Paradise Lost arc is broken down into Wonder Woman (vol. 2) issues 164-170. Thus, homosexual activities on the island of Themyscira cannot be regarded to as a possibility. Rather, it is comic book fact. Thus, I urge that you vote in favor of the con.

Logical-Master

Greetings. I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and extending the challenge to all debators. With formalities out of the way, let us proceed. Ladies and gentleman, notice that the resolution states "Amazons of Themyscira may have engaged in homosexual activities." In other words, my opponent advocates uncertainty as "may" is defined as the following (according to American Heritage Dictionary): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This may 1 (mā) Pronunciation Key aux.v. Past tense might (mīt) -Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice the emphasis on "may" being presented as a possibility in the example "It may rain this afternoon." If one were to prove that "it WILL rain this afternoon", one would have disproved the idea in the above assertion that there's merely a chance of it raining. With that said, I assume you all see where I'm going with this. My opponent advocates that it's merely a possibility that the amazons of themyscira engaged in homosexual activities, but I will prove beyond the notion of a doubt that they did. Now in case some of you aren't familiar with the subject, my opponent and I are discussing the amazons of themyscira. In other words, we are talking about the Amazons from the fictional series many of you know as Wonder Woman. Here is a line taken from DC comics database: "They live in a world where homosexuality is completely accepted -- while some Amazons are chaste, others have loving consorts." http://en.dcdatabaseproject.com... Further confirmation? Sure thing. In the Paradise lost story arc, Phil Jimenez confirms that the amazons resorted to one of the following (as suggested by Wonder Women herself): 1) Some embark on homosexual relationships. 2) Some of them turn to masturbation. 3) Some of them abstain altogether. The Paradise Lost arc is broken down into Wonder Woman (vol. 2) issues 164-170. Thus, homosexual activities on the island of Themyscira cannot be regarded to as a possibility. Rather, it is comic book fact. Thus, I urge that you vote in favor of the con.

Entertainment

Amazons-of-Themyscira-may-have-engaged-in-homosexual-activities./1/

On an island of only women (for centuries), it's hard to fathom that none of these immortal women engaged in lesbian romances.

solo

On an island of only women (for centuries), it's hard to fathom that none of these immortal women engaged in lesbian romances.

Entertainment

Amazons-of-Themyscira-may-have-engaged-in-homosexual-activities./1/

< > We are in agreement of my suspicions. Some Amazons, but not all, did engage in homosexual activities. <

solo

< > We are in agreement of my suspicions. Some Amazons, but not all, did engage in homosexual activities. <

Entertainment

Amazons-of-Themyscira-may-have-engaged-in-homosexual-activities./1/

Good Afternoon Vikuta. I just want to start by thanking you for serving our country. You have my deepest respect and thanks. Now, you've made some very strong charges about the government that I'd like to go over. I. You've charged the "elites that control the country" with having blood on their hands by standing in the way of other nations development. I would like to ask you for some reference that I can argue against. I'll bring my own argument. Between 2002 and 2006, the United States has given Palestine over 700 million dollars in Aid. As we all know, Palestine is a strong supporter of Hamas, a terrorist group that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israelies. <URL>... II. Again, I'd like to know which case you are referring to. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a government of the people has been attempted to be formed. The Prime Minister may not be a good man for the job, but to call him a brutal dictator is a long stretch of the imagination. III. To state that U.S. involvement in international affairs is for bad reasons is really more a matter of personal opinion. The war in Iraq is not a strongly supported cause. However, if you look at it this way, you might change your mind. Hussein is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Even if the war in Iraq has shown there were no WMDs, justice for the innocent that were killed is a VERY good consolation. <URL>... ={0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1} IV. Again, I must ask who you are talking about. V. U.S. Presidents have been trying to build mideast peace agreement for decades. It's not something that is going to happen. The fight between Jews and Arabs goes back to Biblical times. U.S. involvement has nothing to do with thousand year old hatred for one another. I'll give my points in my next argument once I have more information from my opponent.

Guardian27

Good Afternoon Vikuta. I just want to start by thanking you for serving our country. You have my deepest respect and thanks. Now, you've made some very strong charges about the government that I'd like to go over. I. You've charged the "elites that control the country" with having blood on their hands by standing in the way of other nations development. I would like to ask you for some reference that I can argue against. I'll bring my own argument. Between 2002 and 2006, the United States has given Palestine over 700 million dollars in Aid. As we all know, Palestine is a strong supporter of Hamas, a terrorist group that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israelies. http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org... II. Again, I'd like to know which case you are referring to. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a government of the people has been attempted to be formed. The Prime Minister may not be a good man for the job, but to call him a brutal dictator is a long stretch of the imagination. III. To state that U.S. involvement in international affairs is for bad reasons is really more a matter of personal opinion. The war in Iraq is not a strongly supported cause. However, if you look at it this way, you might change your mind. Hussein is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Even if the war in Iraq has shown there were no WMDs, justice for the innocent that were killed is a VERY good consolation. http://www.frontpagemag.com... ={0F2658E9-6A5E-45E9-ACE5-982C0CA355A1} IV. Again, I must ask who you are talking about. V. U.S. Presidents have been trying to build mideast peace agreement for decades. It's not something that is going to happen. The fight between Jews and Arabs goes back to Biblical times. U.S. involvement has nothing to do with thousand year old hatred for one another. I'll give my points in my next argument once I have more information from my opponent.

Politics

America-is-the-World-s-Leading-Terrorist-State/1/

Thank you, to my opponent, for his invitation to this debate. I am looking forward to debating and, though I hardly see where it could be present in this, no personal bias, please. My opponent claims many of America's problems would be solved if only we were to stop "Intervening with other nations." In fact, he even tells us that we NEED to stop intervening. This is a moot statement. First, I must define two terms in order to allow the judges and my opponent know what is being debated: (As always, I'll be using the merriam-Webster dicitonary) Intervening: " to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification " Need as: "necessary duty : obligation" Obviously, we see that it is obligatory, as my opponent states, to stop interfering with foreign affairs. "We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we weren(')t promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops." Excuse me but... Do you hear yourself? We are "end(ing) genocide." Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such? Also, my opponent claims that if we were to pull out of SOME countries, we would have the option and the prerequisite to engage OTHER countries. The resolution you are debating is, "America needs to stop intervening with other nations." not, "America needs to stop intervening with other countries unless they are a threat." The resolution clearly states that we must prevent any foreign activity, seeing as we have had no issues with Afghanistan since 9/11/2001. And even then, it wasn't the Afghan leaders who our dispute was with, it was with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. "We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy (people) quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military." These soldiers are risking their lives to ensure that the world's ONLY superpower remains as such. It is not only contrary to our MORAL obligations as U.S. citizens but also contrary to our purpose in the military: * "Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qa(e)da would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours." This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith. We did not start Afghanistan's problems, in fact, we aided them during the Cold War. "1979 The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, beginning a decade-long war that ends with their withdrawal in 1988." - <URL>... The withdrawl was due to our contribution in arms and defensive forces. (Also refer to the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War") Al Qaeda is a seperate militia all their own. "We(')ve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the (government) more money and help other countrie(s) to like us more." What about our efforts in World War 2. If it weren't for our actions and compilation with Russia, Hitler might very well be the World's dictator and either Germany or Austria would be the only superpower. Debate.org would not exist unless the only debate is "Hitler is right" in which, all those who vote or protect Con would be shot. This is one scenario. Also, what about our current actions in Africa? Would you say that it is MORE of a neccessity to aid starving children, those in need of help, and those affected by Darfur? Now that I have refuted my opponent's case, I shall bring up two contentions of my own. 1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it. A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country. B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries. 2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles. The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life. For the reasons presented to you, I urge you to vote CON. Thank you, -EG

draxxt

Thank you, to my opponent, for his invitation to this debate. I am looking forward to debating and, though I hardly see where it could be present in this, no personal bias, please. My opponent claims many of America's problems would be solved if only we were to stop "Intervening with other nations." In fact, he even tells us that we NEED to stop intervening. This is a moot statement. First, I must define two terms in order to allow the judges and my opponent know what is being debated: (As always, I'll be using the merriam-Webster dicitonary) Intervening: " to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification " Need as: "necessary duty : obligation" Obviously, we see that it is obligatory, as my opponent states, to stop interfering with foreign affairs. "We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we weren(')t promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops." Excuse me but... Do you hear yourself? We are "end(ing) genocide." Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such? Also, my opponent claims that if we were to pull out of SOME countries, we would have the option and the prerequisite to engage OTHER countries. The resolution you are debating is, "America needs to stop intervening with other nations." not, "America needs to stop intervening with other countries unless they are a threat." The resolution clearly states that we must prevent any foreign activity, seeing as we have had no issues with Afghanistan since 9/11/2001. And even then, it wasn't the Afghan leaders who our dispute was with, it was with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. "We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy (people) quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military." These soldiers are risking their lives to ensure that the world's ONLY superpower remains as such. It is not only contrary to our MORAL obligations as U.S. citizens but also contrary to our purpose in the military: * "Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qa(e)da would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours." This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith. We did not start Afghanistan's problems, in fact, we aided them during the Cold War. "1979 The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, beginning a decade-long war that ends with their withdrawal in 1988." - http://www.infoplease.com... The withdrawl was due to our contribution in arms and defensive forces. (Also refer to the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War") Al Qaeda is a seperate militia all their own. "We(')ve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the (government) more money and help other countrie(s) to like us more." What about our efforts in World War 2. If it weren't for our actions and compilation with Russia, Hitler might very well be the World's dictator and either Germany or Austria would be the only superpower. Debate.org would not exist unless the only debate is "Hitler is right" in which, all those who vote or protect Con would be shot. This is one scenario. Also, what about our current actions in Africa? Would you say that it is MORE of a neccessity to aid starving children, those in need of help, and those affected by Darfur? Now that I have refuted my opponent's case, I shall bring up two contentions of my own. 1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it. A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country. B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries. 2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles. The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life. For the reasons presented to you, I urge you to vote CON. Thank you, -EG

Politics

America-needs-to-stop-intervening-with-other-nations./1/

I will grant that I am not as inept at debating foreign policies as my opponent is. That being said, the question still remains: Does America NEED to stop intervening with other countries? My answer: No. It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries. We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function. This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country. <URL>... We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. If not, vote Con. Thank you, -EG

draxxt

I will grant that I am not as inept at debating foreign policies as my opponent is. That being said, the question still remains: Does America NEED to stop intervening with other countries? My answer: No. It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries. We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function. This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country. http://www.imf.org... We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. If not, vote Con. Thank you, -EG

Politics

America-needs-to-stop-intervening-with-other-nations./1/

My opponent's entire resolution rests on the hopes that I will accept his new resolution (Which he has not produced) that should read, "America should stop intervening with foreign countries." I'm sorry but you cannot deny the fact that this resolution is as it always was. If you would like to challenge me to a debate with the proposed resolution, I would gladly accept. Since I never accepted my opponent's unpropitious resolution, and he continued to debate with it, you must vote CON.

draxxt

My opponent's entire resolution rests on the hopes that I will accept his new resolution (Which he has not produced) that should read, "America should stop intervening with foreign countries." I'm sorry but you cannot deny the fact that this resolution is as it always was. If you would like to challenge me to a debate with the proposed resolution, I would gladly accept. Since I never accepted my opponent's unpropitious resolution, and he continued to debate with it, you must vote CON.

Politics

America-needs-to-stop-intervening-with-other-nations./1/

The Libertarian Party believes that the military should pull out of other nations with our militaries eventually if not immediately unless it is absolutely necessary. - We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we werent promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops. - We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy ppl quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military. - Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qaida would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours. - Weve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the governmentment more money and help other countrie to like us more.

notpolicydebategod

The Libertarian Party believes that the military should pull out of other nations with our militaries eventually if not immediately unless it is absolutely necessary. - We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we werent promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops. - We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy ppl quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military. - Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qaida would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours. - Weve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the governmentment more money and help other countrie to like us more.

Politics

America-needs-to-stop-intervening-with-other-nations./1/

I'm going to clear this up: I'm saying that America would be better off if they stopped occupying other nations without their permission and for extensive amoun of time. I apologize if that is an any way unclear. Perhaps the term "need" was exaggerative. - "We are "end(ing) genocide." + We are not ending genocide. We are bombing Kosovo for the purpose of ending genocide and killing more people than are being saved. It is a ridiculously inefficient effort that is poorly thought out. - Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such? + Our occupations are constantly ineffective. The Kosovo intervention is monsterously ineffective. We are promoting democracy in Haiti. And renovating schools in Morocco. It is not our duty or our right to decide Haiti's form of government. And it is not our troop's duty or training t renovate schools. That is abusive. It is hardly our right to intervene in other nation's policies, especially when our great nation is in shambles and our military is significantly overstretched. - "The US has a moral obligation to intervene." + Our nation's intervention is almost always ineffective, tremendously costly, and kills many people. How is it our moral obligation to help renovate schools in Morocco? It is nice but hardly an occupation. And their school system is poor anyway. We have schools in America that require renovation. These schools were built in the 1800s. My school itself was made in 1914. Why are we interfering with Haiti's government when it is not hurting people? We are spending tons of money and they still dont hav a democracy after 14 years. - This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. [Al Qaida is irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict] Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith. + Al Qaida does not have a sole goal. One of its goals and its main goal even is to set up a global Islamic calaphite but this is an impossible goal if America keeps helping Israel and Palestine and encourage a Jewish state. If we encourage the Jewish state of Israel, then Al Qaida cant have them to be Islamic now can they? This is a voiced concern of Al Qaida. Please research your facts before you state them. - World War 2 was a successful intervention. + Yes. This was a successful intervention and I've always supported it. But the occupation we have now of Germany is ridiculous. To say that no intervention is ever necessary is naieve but constant occupations are ridiculous. Our intervening in World War 2 helped us by heling our allies and who our world colleagues were. It was not intervening another nation. It was helping us. And who knows? Maybe those Nazis would have come for America next. It was a strategic war to help ourselves. Not a mindless intervention with other nations. - Darfur. + Darfur has oil and to help them would be helping ourselves. Hardly a mindless intervention. AND we can help Darfur without engaging in Darfur. We need to help the United Nations take action instead of taking action ourselves with our troops and resources. The Darfur crisis is monstrous and is certainly as genocide and we need to help stop it. But it is helping ourselves with oil, public diplomacy with surrrounding nations. But we cant use our troops and resources to fight someone elses problems. 1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it. - No. We dont. Look at Iraq, Vietnam, Belize, Syria, Kosovo, Haiti, Morocco. And we dont even try to step in Darfur or Rwanda. We dont help those in need. We hurt those in need of help. We've destroyed Iraq. Killed dozens of thousands in Iraq. And Iraq simply is not better off or more peaceful with us. Vietnam killed millions of Vietnamese and Americans. And look where they are now. Belize is still in shambles. Syria and Kosovo are still constantly fighting. Haiti cant be called a democracy. Morocco still has pooreducation. And the list goes on. We have troops in 144 countries around the world. Think of the cost in lives and money. A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country. - American assistance is always ineffective. Africa is still raging with disease. The money we send is put through corrupted African dictators and stolen. And the culture barrier makes intervention impossible. One time Americans went to show Africans how to use condoms and they used a stick to demonstrate. Weeks later they came back to find a condom over a stick in the middle of the village and the AIDS rate rose significantly. We are hurting them. B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries. + One example? 2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles. + Like Iraq, Syria, Kosovo, most of Africa and Vietnam are in now? The nations we go to are still in shambles after intervention. - The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life. + Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with America or Al Qaida as we know now. Iraq was a rich nation with very strict laws though. When America makes dumb policy decisions nobody lynches our president. That is barbaric and an archaic concept. We went and destroyed Iraq and are now trying to build it back up. America has no business in Iraq. In the beginning, Bush said the meaning of the war was to find WMDs, promote democracy, and stop terrorism. We learned there were no weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. And their government is very ineffective and we cant help them be effective. The Iraq War was potentially the worst foreign policy decision if not policy decision, period, in American history. Intervening in other nations cost us significant amounts of money when we have a trillion dollar debt and a bad economy. It is ineffective. And it hurts our foreign relationships. ...Look...All of Europe hates America for its foreign policy. Our foreign relationships are in shambles mostly because of our intervention in Iraq. ... We have troops in 144 nations around the world. Think of the cost. ... Most of our interventions are for little things like renovating schools in Morocco. Think of the fuel cost, salary, food, shelter, equipment, tools and still actually renovating the school. ... Think of all the dead Americans who died for somebody else's country. ... It is simply unconstitutional and un-American. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," I hope you vote pro. Considering that I have answered each of his arguments with a smart and logical answer. And I have presented points of my own that he cant account for. Thank you for reading this debate.

notpolicydebategod

I'm going to clear this up: I'm saying that America would be better off if they stopped occupying other nations without their permission and for extensive amoun of time. I apologize if that is an any way unclear. Perhaps the term "need" was exaggerative. - "We are "end(ing) genocide." + We are not ending genocide. We are bombing Kosovo for the purpose of ending genocide and killing more people than are being saved. It is a ridiculously inefficient effort that is poorly thought out. - Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such? + Our occupations are constantly ineffective. The Kosovo intervention is monsterously ineffective. We are promoting democracy in Haiti. And renovating schools in Morocco. It is not our duty or our right to decide Haiti's form of government. And it is not our troop's duty or training t renovate schools. That is abusive. It is hardly our right to intervene in other nation's policies, especially when our great nation is in shambles and our military is significantly overstretched. - "The US has a moral obligation to intervene." + Our nation's intervention is almost always ineffective, tremendously costly, and kills many people. How is it our moral obligation to help renovate schools in Morocco? It is nice but hardly an occupation. And their school system is poor anyway. We have schools in America that require renovation. These schools were built in the 1800s. My school itself was made in 1914. Why are we interfering with Haiti's government when it is not hurting people? We are spending tons of money and they still dont hav a democracy after 14 years. - This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. [Al Qaida is irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict] Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith. + Al Qaida does not have a sole goal. One of its goals and its main goal even is to set up a global Islamic calaphite but this is an impossible goal if America keeps helping Israel and Palestine and encourage a Jewish state. If we encourage the Jewish state of Israel, then Al Qaida cant have them to be Islamic now can they? This is a voiced concern of Al Qaida. Please research your facts before you state them. - World War 2 was a successful intervention. + Yes. This was a successful intervention and I've always supported it. But the occupation we have now of Germany is ridiculous. To say that no intervention is ever necessary is naieve but constant occupations are ridiculous. Our intervening in World War 2 helped us by heling our allies and who our world colleagues were. It was not intervening another nation. It was helping us. And who knows? Maybe those Nazis would have come for America next. It was a strategic war to help ourselves. Not a mindless intervention with other nations. - Darfur. + Darfur has oil and to help them would be helping ourselves. Hardly a mindless intervention. AND we can help Darfur without engaging in Darfur. We need to help the United Nations take action instead of taking action ourselves with our troops and resources. The Darfur crisis is monstrous and is certainly as genocide and we need to help stop it. But it is helping ourselves with oil, public diplomacy with surrrounding nations. But we cant use our troops and resources to fight someone elses problems. 1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it. - No. We dont. Look at Iraq, Vietnam, Belize, Syria, Kosovo, Haiti, Morocco. And we dont even try to step in Darfur or Rwanda. We dont help those in need. We hurt those in need of help. We've destroyed Iraq. Killed dozens of thousands in Iraq. And Iraq simply is not better off or more peaceful with us. Vietnam killed millions of Vietnamese and Americans. And look where they are now. Belize is still in shambles. Syria and Kosovo are still constantly fighting. Haiti cant be called a democracy. Morocco still has pooreducation. And the list goes on. We have troops in 144 countries around the world. Think of the cost in lives and money. A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country. - American assistance is always ineffective. Africa is still raging with disease. The money we send is put through corrupted African dictators and stolen. And the culture barrier makes intervention impossible. One time Americans went to show Africans how to use condoms and they used a stick to demonstrate. Weeks later they came back to find a condom over a stick in the middle of the village and the AIDS rate rose significantly. We are hurting them. B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries. + One example? 2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles. + Like Iraq, Syria, Kosovo, most of Africa and Vietnam are in now? The nations we go to are still in shambles after intervention. - The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life. + Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with America or Al Qaida as we know now. Iraq was a rich nation with very strict laws though. When America makes dumb policy decisions nobody lynches our president. That is barbaric and an archaic concept. We went and destroyed Iraq and are now trying to build it back up. America has no business in Iraq. In the beginning, Bush said the meaning of the war was to find WMDs, promote democracy, and stop terrorism. We learned there were no weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. And their government is very ineffective and we cant help them be effective. The Iraq War was potentially the worst foreign policy decision if not policy decision, period, in American history. Intervening in other nations cost us significant amounts of money when we have a trillion dollar debt and a bad economy. It is ineffective. And it hurts our foreign relationships. ...Look...All of Europe hates America for its foreign policy. Our foreign relationships are in shambles mostly because of our intervention in Iraq. ... We have troops in 144 nations around the world. Think of the cost. ... Most of our interventions are for little things like renovating schools in Morocco. Think of the fuel cost, salary, food, shelter, equipment, tools and still actually renovating the school. ... Think of all the dead Americans who died for somebody else's country. ... It is simply unconstitutional and un-American. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," I hope you vote pro. Considering that I have answered each of his arguments with a smart and logical answer. And I have presented points of my own that he cant account for. Thank you for reading this debate.

Politics

America-needs-to-stop-intervening-with-other-nations./1/

It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries. + Wow. Did you just say basically that if America is not wholly destroyed, we should do anything? Interventions are constantly ineffective and costly. We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. + Its costed trillions of dollars, other nations (especially the ones with oil) hate us, its costed us four thousand lives. Thts substantial. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function. + We owe $200 billion of war debt. <URL>... This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country. + China is completely irrelevant. Its a shame that were so dependent on them but thats a different debate. We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. + You just said that it is fine if we become a third world counrty! A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. + I told you what I meant. "Need" was too strict a term and I loosened it in round 2. Why are you hanging on to it? ...Look...My opponent seems to have given up on this debate. I've said that if we stopped intervening in other nations when it had no beneft to us, we would benefit. We help out in Morocco with school renovations. This costs us a lot of money, overstretches our military so we cant act on real threats, and it is useless. We should stop these interventions. My opponent claims that "even if we are a third world country, we are still a country." Well, I'd like to live to a higher standard than that. He says "America was not completely destroyed." Lets try to do the best we can instead of better than the very worse. Vote PRO if you want our nation to have more money, more troops and to live to a greater living standard. Thank you. Please vote PRO.

notpolicydebategod

It is not detrimental as a whole against America's existance to stop intervening with foreign countries. + Wow. Did you just say basically that if America is not wholly destroyed, we should do anything? Interventions are constantly ineffective and costly. We have been in Iraq for a large sum of time (about as long as Vietnam, I believe) and it hasn't depleted us economically. + Its costed trillions of dollars, other nations (especially the ones with oil) hate us, its costed us four thousand lives. Thts substantial. Our debt was rather large before the war and could not be helped as I assume my opponent is debating that we need to stop intervening unless it benefits us. We, essentially, NEED China's resources and exports to function. + We owe $200 billion of war debt. http://www.atimes.com... This site will give proper illustrations as to how much China contributes to our country. + China is completely irrelevant. Its a shame that were so dependent on them but thats a different debate. We don't NEED to stop intervening. We will function without it. Even if we become a third world country, we will still be a country. + You just said that it is fine if we become a third world counrty! A need is used as a means of maintaining existance. Third world countries exist, we exist, America exists and therefore, we do not NEED to stop intervening. It is not threatening to the existance of our country and I would like my opponent to prove otherwise. + I told you what I meant. "Need" was too strict a term and I loosened it in round 2. Why are you hanging on to it? ...Look...My opponent seems to have given up on this debate. I've said that if we stopped intervening in other nations when it had no beneft to us, we would benefit. We help out in Morocco with school renovations. This costs us a lot of money, overstretches our military so we cant act on real threats, and it is useless. We should stop these interventions. My opponent claims that "even if we are a third world country, we are still a country." Well, I'd like to live to a higher standard than that. He says "America was not completely destroyed." Lets try to do the best we can instead of better than the very worse. Vote PRO if you want our nation to have more money, more troops and to live to a greater living standard. Thank you. Please vote PRO.

Politics

America-needs-to-stop-intervening-with-other-nations./1/

I believe america should not have a welfare system simply because we don't have the money to afford it and that people abuse if people can't hold on to their money it is not our fault and should not have to make it our problem every human has somthing they don't need and could continue without like a washing machine a drier beer a tv their are plenty of things. I wish my opponent a good debate

american5

I believe america should not have a welfare system simply because we don't have the money to afford it and that people abuse if people can't hold on to their money it is not our fault and should not have to make it our problem every human has somthing they don't need and could continue without like a washing machine a drier beer a tv their are plenty of things. I wish my opponent a good debate

Politics

America-should-not-have-welfare/1/

I will not argue with my opponent about the fact that some people are actually needy but the fact is that people abuse it they are just morons who can't hold down a job just a few years ago my dad lost his job and went on welfare do you know what he did with it took every cent and bought band equipment so he could begin a band and lots of alcohol ending my parents marriage they are going through the divorce right now.

american5

I will not argue with my opponent about the fact that some people are actually needy but the fact is that people abuse it they are just morons who can't hold down a job just a few years ago my dad lost his job and went on welfare do you know what he did with it took every cent and bought band equipment so he could begin a band and lots of alcohol ending my parents marriage they are going through the divorce right now.

Politics

America-should-not-have-welfare/1/

A valid argument but just because someone is handicapped or unable to work dose not mean they are no longer useless they can still do something to earn the money like teaching.

american5

A valid argument but just because someone is handicapped or unable to work dose not mean they are no longer useless they can still do something to earn the money like teaching.

Politics

America-should-not-have-welfare/1/

I will argue that America shouldn't use any military force in Syria or send weapons, money, or provide training in this conflict. This is an open debate and I don't really see a need for rules. The first round is acceptance or feel free to start off the debate.

DavidMGold

I will argue that America shouldn't use any military force in Syria or send weapons, money, or provide training in this conflict. This is an open debate and I don't really see a need for rules. The first round is acceptance or feel free to start off the debate.

Politics

America-shouldnt-use-any-military-force-even-weapons-money-or-training-in-Syria/1/

I will start with my first and most important contention followed by the second and most obvious. First Contention - It Strengthens Al-Qaeda & Harms America's Security The American people (and our elected representatives) should seriously examine the rush to intervene militarily in the Syrian conflict when it directly helps Al-Qaeda, which is responsible for the most deadly attack on American soil in our history. Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, in Febuary 2012 came out in support of the efforts to oust Bashar al-Assad and his regime[1]. The Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front is an Al-Qaeda branch operating in that conflict and the leader, Abou Mohamad al-Joulani, has pledged the allegiance of the group to Ayman al-Zawahri[2]. Their goal is the overthrow of Assad's regime to make way for a Pan-Islamic State ruled by Sharia Law[3]. The group has been officially designated as a terrorist group by the United States[4]. ABC, CBS, and NBC have done 171 stories since August 21 on Syria and only 11 bothered to mention Al-Qaeda is operating in the country[5]. The British Intelligence Community (such as Britain"s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) have released an assessment that Al-Qaeda and other Jihadists operating in Syria have become "the most worrying emerging terrorist threat to the UK and the West." Also, "The Agencies and JTAC assess that Al-Qaeda elements and individual jihadists in Syria currently represent the most worrying emerging terrorist threat to the UK and the West," said the report in a section titled, "The Agencies' Assessment of the Threat[6]." Turkey has sent in the largest weapon shipments to date, which were knowingly distributed to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups and at the same time Al-Qaeda has managed to free as many as 2,000 members from prisons in Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya[7]. John Kerry was called out on his lie about the estimate of Jihadists that comprise the so-called rebels in Syria, which House Homeland Security Committee chairman Mike McCaul (R"Texas) said he learned in various briefings that it is closer to 50 percent. He said, "the rebels are "a majority now jihadist, so my concern is going into this situation that anything we do at this point to empower the jihadists " which I thought al Qaeda was the enemy " concerns me from homeland security perspective[8]." Ansar al-Sharia, the Al-Qaeda-affiliated militia, which was responsible for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya is now training Jihadists to fight in Syria[9]. Last year, it was known to U.S. officials that the majority of weapons being sent to Syria were going into the hands of Jihadists[10]. They are the dominant force in Syria with the best organization, most experienced fighters, and the mythical secular appear nowhere in the country. The N.Y. Times reported, "Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of[11]." It is ironic that Russia now has more credibility on the issue than our own government. From a foreign policy or a national perspective, U.S. military intervention and aid in Syria will put our government and military in the service of Al-Qaeda and global Jihadists, which is an outrageous proposition and yet amazingly in these Orwellian times largely escape the entire discussion of our involvement in this conflict. Militarily, you would allow your enemies to fight among themselves, not lend your biggest enemy in the 21st century your forces. Obama may be fond arguing that their will be "no boots on the ground," but that's because the boots are Jihadists coming in from Europe, North Africa, and throughout the Middle East. Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Israel's Military Intelligence Chief, has said that Syria is the "center of global jihad" and that they will set up an Islamic state much like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan[12]. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] <URL>... [6] <URL>... [7] <URL>... [8] <URL>... [9] <URL>... [10] <URL>... [11] <URL>... [12] <URL>... Second Contention - Assad's Regime Hasn't Attacked the U.S. As detestable as Bashar al-Assad and his regime may be from a western perspective, the fact remains that he hasn't launched any attacks on the United States or it's people. The great irony is that the Jihadists in Syria have carried out attacks on the U.S.

DavidMGold

I will start with my first and most important contention followed by the second and most obvious. First Contention - It Strengthens Al-Qaeda & Harms America's Security The American people (and our elected representatives) should seriously examine the rush to intervene militarily in the Syrian conflict when it directly helps Al-Qaeda, which is responsible for the most deadly attack on American soil in our history. Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, in Febuary 2012 came out in support of the efforts to oust Bashar al-Assad and his regime[1]. The Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front is an Al-Qaeda branch operating in that conflict and the leader, Abou Mohamad al-Joulani, has pledged the allegiance of the group to Ayman al-Zawahri[2]. Their goal is the overthrow of Assad's regime to make way for a Pan-Islamic State ruled by Sharia Law[3]. The group has been officially designated as a terrorist group by the United States[4]. ABC, CBS, and NBC have done 171 stories since August 21 on Syria and only 11 bothered to mention Al-Qaeda is operating in the country[5]. The British Intelligence Community (such as Britain"s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) have released an assessment that Al-Qaeda and other Jihadists operating in Syria have become "the most worrying emerging terrorist threat to the UK and the West." Also, "The Agencies and JTAC assess that Al-Qaeda elements and individual jihadists in Syria currently represent the most worrying emerging terrorist threat to the UK and the West," said the report in a section titled, "The Agencies' Assessment of the Threat[6]." Turkey has sent in the largest weapon shipments to date, which were knowingly distributed to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups and at the same time Al-Qaeda has managed to free as many as 2,000 members from prisons in Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya[7]. John Kerry was called out on his lie about the estimate of Jihadists that comprise the so-called rebels in Syria, which House Homeland Security Committee chairman Mike McCaul (R"Texas) said he learned in various briefings that it is closer to 50 percent. He said, "the rebels are "a majority now jihadist, so my concern is going into this situation that anything we do at this point to empower the jihadists " which I thought al Qaeda was the enemy " concerns me from homeland security perspective[8]." Ansar al-Sharia, the Al-Qaeda-affiliated militia, which was responsible for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya is now training Jihadists to fight in Syria[9]. Last year, it was known to U.S. officials that the majority of weapons being sent to Syria were going into the hands of Jihadists[10]. They are the dominant force in Syria with the best organization, most experienced fighters, and the mythical secular appear nowhere in the country. The N.Y. Times reported, "Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of[11]." It is ironic that Russia now has more credibility on the issue than our own government. From a foreign policy or a national perspective, U.S. military intervention and aid in Syria will put our government and military in the service of Al-Qaeda and global Jihadists, which is an outrageous proposition and yet amazingly in these Orwellian times largely escape the entire discussion of our involvement in this conflict. Militarily, you would allow your enemies to fight among themselves, not lend your biggest enemy in the 21st century your forces. Obama may be fond arguing that their will be "no boots on the ground," but that's because the boots are Jihadists coming in from Europe, North Africa, and throughout the Middle East. Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Israel's Military Intelligence Chief, has said that Syria is the "center of global jihad" and that they will set up an Islamic state much like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan[12]. [1] http://www.reuters.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] http://www.state.gov... [5] http://www.washingtontimes.com... [6] http://www.cnsnews.com... [7] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [8] http://thehill.com... [9] http://www.foxnews.com... [10] http://www.nytimes.com... [11] http://www.nytimes.com... [12] http://rt.com... Second Contention - Assad's Regime Hasn't Attacked the U.S. As detestable as Bashar al-Assad and his regime may be from a western perspective, the fact remains that he hasn't launched any attacks on the United States or it's people. The great irony is that the Jihadists in Syria have carried out attacks on the U.S.

Politics

America-shouldnt-use-any-military-force-even-weapons-money-or-training-in-Syria/1/

This was a wasted debate..

DavidMGold

This was a wasted debate..

Politics

America-shouldnt-use-any-military-force-even-weapons-money-or-training-in-Syria/1/

Americans are naturally concerned with the personal lives and conduct of their elected leaders. Scandals at the national elective level draw even more attention than scandals among Hollywood stars. There is a very simple reason for this: We elected them. What do John Edwards, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newson, Elliott Spitzer and Gary Hart all have in common? They were elected. A vote is a mark of trust, and when those on whom we have bestowed our votes betray that trust, we naturally regard it as a serious personal affront; something to take offense at, something to SPEND TIME investigating. You may say this this does not follow, because you do not view adultery and sexual misdeeds as a betrayal of the trust elected leaders earn. But they are. Let us take Edwards for example. The man was an irrelevant piece of furniture in the 2008 campaign in my opinion, and so toned up the us-vs.-them, two-Americas rhetoric to keep himself in the news. While he was trumpeting about injustice towards the poor, the evil rich, and the need for the eternally vague term "change," he was cheating on his cancer-stricken wife with a blonde vamp in expensive hotel rooms. Do these strike you as the actions of a trustworthy man, of a man fit to be elected to the country's highest office? Why is this relevant? You say people concentrate too much on the people, and not the issues they deal with. But you would trust the day-to-day navigation of the Ship of State to people who would engage prostitutes, solicit gay sex in a restroom, betray their spouses on yachts named "Monkey Business" and dare the media to catch them at it, or be pleasured by a fat aide--in the Oval Office? I certainly wouldn't. Underlying your argument is the obvious fallacy that people's "personal" lives are completely divorced from their "public" lives, and thus what they do in private is nothing of our, their constituents', concern. If you are right, then the media coverage and the attention people pay to these misdeeds is out of proportion, and they should indeed concentrate on real issues that face America. But if I am right, then this concentration is merely a symptom of the TRUST we place in our leaders, those who DETERMINE the response we give to your vaunted issues, and our natural anger when that trust is betrayed. You can't, I repeat, chop a person into two parts: public and private. What he or she does in one sphere affects the other sphere proportionately because they are part of the same person. So, any misdeed in one sphere has reverberations in the other. In the case of a self-righteous hypocrite like Edwards, this makes him a hypocrite. With less outwardly puritanical politicians, it merely makes the people who elected him, most of whom have far more self- and zipper-control, disdain him as a phony. It is accepted that leaders in this civilized society are accountable to the people who elected them, thus if their sins meet with disapproval in the electorate, they must account for them, therefore, all scrutiny is called for. You paint a disturbing picture of America today, and not without reason. I think, however, that people complain far more about gas prices than they do about being deceived by John Edwards; they are more alarmed by Russia's invasion of a sovereign non-aggressor state than by the fact that Edwards could have been President. I certainly am. Certainly, it would be a pity if people ignored the destruction being rained on Georgia in favor of whether or not John Edwards fathered his mistress' child. I certainly did not; the Georgia story is far more important and alarming--and neither did CNN.com. On the day after the Olympic opening ceremonies, did the choose to concentrate on that, or the Edwards affair? No, they chose to devote their front-page headline, so to speak, to the Georgia invasion. So in conclusion, Americans spend enough time on the issues; in general more time than they spend on the sordid, but maddening and important, affairs of politicians; but what time they do spend on these politicians is merited by the fact that their actions were a betrayal of the vote of trust bestowed on that candidate.

SolaGratia

Americans are naturally concerned with the personal lives and conduct of their elected leaders. Scandals at the national elective level draw even more attention than scandals among Hollywood stars. There is a very simple reason for this: We elected them. What do John Edwards, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newson, Elliott Spitzer and Gary Hart all have in common? They were elected. A vote is a mark of trust, and when those on whom we have bestowed our votes betray that trust, we naturally regard it as a serious personal affront; something to take offense at, something to SPEND TIME investigating. You may say this this does not follow, because you do not view adultery and sexual misdeeds as a betrayal of the trust elected leaders earn. But they are. Let us take Edwards for example. The man was an irrelevant piece of furniture in the 2008 campaign in my opinion, and so toned up the us-vs.-them, two-Americas rhetoric to keep himself in the news. While he was trumpeting about injustice towards the poor, the evil rich, and the need for the eternally vague term "change," he was cheating on his cancer-stricken wife with a blonde vamp in expensive hotel rooms. Do these strike you as the actions of a trustworthy man, of a man fit to be elected to the country's highest office? Why is this relevant? You say people concentrate too much on the people, and not the issues they deal with. But you would trust the day-to-day navigation of the Ship of State to people who would engage prostitutes, solicit gay sex in a restroom, betray their spouses on yachts named "Monkey Business" and dare the media to catch them at it, or be pleasured by a fat aide--in the Oval Office? I certainly wouldn't. Underlying your argument is the obvious fallacy that people's "personal" lives are completely divorced from their "public" lives, and thus what they do in private is nothing of our, their constituents', concern. If you are right, then the media coverage and the attention people pay to these misdeeds is out of proportion, and they should indeed concentrate on real issues that face America. But if I am right, then this concentration is merely a symptom of the TRUST we place in our leaders, those who DETERMINE the response we give to your vaunted issues, and our natural anger when that trust is betrayed. You can't, I repeat, chop a person into two parts: public and private. What he or she does in one sphere affects the other sphere proportionately because they are part of the same person. So, any misdeed in one sphere has reverberations in the other. In the case of a self-righteous hypocrite like Edwards, this makes him a hypocrite. With less outwardly puritanical politicians, it merely makes the people who elected him, most of whom have far more self- and zipper-control, disdain him as a phony. It is accepted that leaders in this civilized society are accountable to the people who elected them, thus if their sins meet with disapproval in the electorate, they must account for them, therefore, all scrutiny is called for. You paint a disturbing picture of America today, and not without reason. I think, however, that people complain far more about gas prices than they do about being deceived by John Edwards; they are more alarmed by Russia's invasion of a sovereign non-aggressor state than by the fact that Edwards could have been President. I certainly am. Certainly, it would be a pity if people ignored the destruction being rained on Georgia in favor of whether or not John Edwards fathered his mistress' child. I certainly did not; the Georgia story is far more important and alarming--and neither did CNN.com. On the day after the Olympic opening ceremonies, did the choose to concentrate on that, or the Edwards affair? No, they chose to devote their front-page headline, so to speak, to the Georgia invasion. So in conclusion, Americans spend enough time on the issues; in general more time than they spend on the sordid, but maddening and important, affairs of politicians; but what time they do spend on these politicians is merited by the fact that their actions were a betrayal of the vote of trust bestowed on that candidate.

Politics

America-spends-too-much-time-on-our-politicians-personal-lives-and-not-enough-on-the-issues./1/

True, what Spitzer and Craig did is somewhat different than what Edwards did. Spitzer and Craig crossed the line; into the illegal. Edwards merely betrayed his wife and lied about it. However, you're basically saying that the legality/illegality is what determines what is right and wrong. It is wrong, but not illegal, to cheat on your spouse. It is illegal, however, to hire people to do it with, lie about it under oath, etc. It is wrong, but not illegal, to get drunk. But it is both wrong and illegal to drink and drive. What's the difference? In the second case, operation of a vehicle while intoxicated is a serious danger to yourself and others, while with designated drivers and things like that, drinking itself can be kept as risk-free as possible when imbibing large quantities of addictive substances that are flammable and unhealthy in large quantities. With adultery, however, there are ALWAYS victims. When you are callous enough to cheat on your spouse, your spouse is hurt. Badly. Your mistress is hurt, because, as with Edwards, the relationship is extremely unlikely to come to a satisfactory conclusion. You yourself are hurt because you are defiling yourself, and it turns you askew. I'm not saying all adulterers' lives are ruined, at least not immediately, but it will come back and get you. Adultery is, quite simply, not what I want my elected leaders to concentrate on. Even if it is, as you say, basically something we should just ignore, it has to impair their ability to do their job. Thus, illegality is not a good measure of whether a person's personal actions should be scrutinized; it is Right and Wrong. This is doubly true with elected leaders: they represent us in more ways than one; they speak for us at the level they are at, but they also reflect back on the people they represent. When Elliott Spitzer was outed as a sleazeball, the people of NY rightfully wanted to get rid of him right away, because he reflected badly on them. I contest what you say about a "Wall of Edwards." I don't have any figures, and I'm sure you don't either, but from the news I've seen, it seems that the media concentrates far, far more on issues like the War, the economy, etc. than it ever does on the personal lives of politicians, even when they're embroiled in scandal. I think we're concentrating too much on the adultery side of this. Candidates "personal lives" can include legitimate things such as their pet peeves, relationships with their family, etc. It can also include financial misdealings and bossism, such as Gov. Rod Blagojevich is under investigation for. You may not see how adultery can affect someone's ability to lead, but when politicians steal and bribe, that's part of their "personal lives" too. Do you think THAT interferes with their ability to do their job well? Again, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's right or just. It all comes down to what we want our POLITICIANS concentrating on: the blond babe they're cheating with, or the people they're representing? The money they're taking in illicit side contracts, the money they've made in Cattle Futures, or the interests and needs of the people? When they concentrate on the wrong things, the scrutiny of the people is and should be attracted, because they're not doing their job. Fun Fact: Bush Sr. may have had some of the lowest approval ratings in history, but he also had THE highest--after the Gulf War 1 was successfully concluded. And Nixon's shenanigans at Watergate, I think, are part of his personal, private life; or were before they came out. So you think the scrutiny and anger over Watergate was unjustified? Sure he broke the law, but it was part of his "personal" life. Should we just ignore that? Say you were in an affair with someone. You love the person very much, but want to stay married to your current wife so people will not lose their respect for you. It may also be bad for your prestige generally, because you hold a very important, closely scrutinized job. You are preoccupied with keeping your affair secret from everyone. You worry about your wife and children finding out, you worry that your mistress will blackmail you because of the importance of your job; you worry that she will reveal the affair, intentionally or unintentionally. Now, do you think that having all these things going on in your head might, just might, interfere with your ability to do your job? Or say it is a financial indiscretion. The same circumstance applies. Your personal life is intertwined almost beyond the point of distinction with your public life, and so an indiscretion in one reflects just as strongly in the other, even if the effects are not immediately apparent. So, spending time on politicians' personal lives is no wrong; and while not as important as the actual issues, it is still important--to keep politicians honest, and to know bad apples when you see them.

SolaGratia

True, what Spitzer and Craig did is somewhat different than what Edwards did. Spitzer and Craig crossed the line; into the illegal. Edwards merely betrayed his wife and lied about it. However, you're basically saying that the legality/illegality is what determines what is right and wrong. It is wrong, but not illegal, to cheat on your spouse. It is illegal, however, to hire people to do it with, lie about it under oath, etc. It is wrong, but not illegal, to get drunk. But it is both wrong and illegal to drink and drive. What's the difference? In the second case, operation of a vehicle while intoxicated is a serious danger to yourself and others, while with designated drivers and things like that, drinking itself can be kept as risk-free as possible when imbibing large quantities of addictive substances that are flammable and unhealthy in large quantities. With adultery, however, there are ALWAYS victims. When you are callous enough to cheat on your spouse, your spouse is hurt. Badly. Your mistress is hurt, because, as with Edwards, the relationship is extremely unlikely to come to a satisfactory conclusion. You yourself are hurt because you are defiling yourself, and it turns you askew. I'm not saying all adulterers' lives are ruined, at least not immediately, but it will come back and get you. Adultery is, quite simply, not what I want my elected leaders to concentrate on. Even if it is, as you say, basically something we should just ignore, it has to impair their ability to do their job. Thus, illegality is not a good measure of whether a person's personal actions should be scrutinized; it is Right and Wrong. This is doubly true with elected leaders: they represent us in more ways than one; they speak for us at the level they are at, but they also reflect back on the people they represent. When Elliott Spitzer was outed as a sleazeball, the people of NY rightfully wanted to get rid of him right away, because he reflected badly on them. I contest what you say about a "Wall of Edwards." I don't have any figures, and I'm sure you don't either, but from the news I've seen, it seems that the media concentrates far, far more on issues like the War, the economy, etc. than it ever does on the personal lives of politicians, even when they're embroiled in scandal. I think we're concentrating too much on the adultery side of this. Candidates "personal lives" can include legitimate things such as their pet peeves, relationships with their family, etc. It can also include financial misdealings and bossism, such as Gov. Rod Blagojevich is under investigation for. You may not see how adultery can affect someone's ability to lead, but when politicians steal and bribe, that's part of their "personal lives" too. Do you think THAT interferes with their ability to do their job well? Again, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's right or just. It all comes down to what we want our POLITICIANS concentrating on: the blond babe they're cheating with, or the people they're representing? The money they're taking in illicit side contracts, the money they've made in Cattle Futures, or the interests and needs of the people? When they concentrate on the wrong things, the scrutiny of the people is and should be attracted, because they're not doing their job. Fun Fact: Bush Sr. may have had some of the lowest approval ratings in history, but he also had THE highest--after the Gulf War 1 was successfully concluded. And Nixon's shenanigans at Watergate, I think, are part of his personal, private life; or were before they came out. So you think the scrutiny and anger over Watergate was unjustified? Sure he broke the law, but it was part of his "personal" life. Should we just ignore that? Say you were in an affair with someone. You love the person very much, but want to stay married to your current wife so people will not lose their respect for you. It may also be bad for your prestige generally, because you hold a very important, closely scrutinized job. You are preoccupied with keeping your affair secret from everyone. You worry about your wife and children finding out, you worry that your mistress will blackmail you because of the importance of your job; you worry that she will reveal the affair, intentionally or unintentionally. Now, do you think that having all these things going on in your head might, just might, interfere with your ability to do your job? Or say it is a financial indiscretion. The same circumstance applies. Your personal life is intertwined almost beyond the point of distinction with your public life, and so an indiscretion in one reflects just as strongly in the other, even if the effects are not immediately apparent. So, spending time on politicians' personal lives is no wrong; and while not as important as the actual issues, it is still important--to keep politicians honest, and to know bad apples when you see them.

Politics

America-spends-too-much-time-on-our-politicians-personal-lives-and-not-enough-on-the-issues./1/

Your analogy about hiring is apt, but consider this. People who have the power to hire and fire can make up their own mind about who they want to do the job. They look at the applicants' resumes, find out what they can about them, interview them and finally offer them a job, or don't call back. Imagine that we, the people, are the people with hire and fire power over the politicians. We need to know what kind of people they are; Are they personable? Are they competent? Do they have the experience and qualifications for the job? Are they nic people? We need to know about transgressions in their past, and whether they're likely to commit them again. This is not "sticking to my morals," it's legitimate interest. Politicians, unlike movie stars and other celebrities, are directly responsible to us, the people who elected them. We want, nay, need to know about them. We are not going to elect a dark horse, and we are not going to tolerate politicians who do things we don't want them to do. Adultery and other personal transgressions, as well as more public blunders, fall under that heading, don't you think? By the way, you're dead wrong about Clinton. He was not prosecuted for adultery, he was prosecuted for lying under oath about it. And for the record, he was impeached, but not driven from office. People think it means the same thing. Your Clinton hero-worship can't blind you to the fact that he LIED. You may be willing to pass over adultery, but lying under oath about personal doings? I assume you mean "bribes," not "brides." If a politician takes bribes, he's taking money for favors. If he's taking brides, he's Warren Jeffs. I think we have a little disagreement about the definition of the word "personal." In this sense, I think it means anything done personally, especially in private or secret, illegal or not. You think it means anything done personally, especially in private or secret UNLESS it's illegal. While I agree that if an action is illegal, it is always illegal, if a politician does something illegal secretly, it's "personal" first, and illegal after. You say Americans "spend too much time" on politicians' personal lives. You say that unless something is illegal, it is the politicians' business and not ours, the people who elected them. But how do we find out if they've done anything illegal unless we "spend time" on their personal lives. Are you suggesting that their privacy is so sacrosanct that people should not investigate politicians, not for fear that they might uncover something nasty, but that they might NOT? An altogether wrongheaded way of doing things. In conclusion, while I don't know if I approve of the media spouting triumphantly over the sordid wrongs of politicians, I believe the people have a right to know what their leaders are doing. It is almost as important, in fact, as paying attention to the issues. Who dictates our response to the issues? The politicians. Therefore, we should scrutinize what they do PERSONALLY to find out whether we are being well represented. Thank you for an excellent debate. BeatTheDevil.

SolaGratia

Your analogy about hiring is apt, but consider this. People who have the power to hire and fire can make up their own mind about who they want to do the job. They look at the applicants' resumes, find out what they can about them, interview them and finally offer them a job, or don't call back. Imagine that we, the people, are the people with hire and fire power over the politicians. We need to know what kind of people they are; Are they personable? Are they competent? Do they have the experience and qualifications for the job? Are they nic people? We need to know about transgressions in their past, and whether they're likely to commit them again. This is not "sticking to my morals," it's legitimate interest. Politicians, unlike movie stars and other celebrities, are directly responsible to us, the people who elected them. We want, nay, need to know about them. We are not going to elect a dark horse, and we are not going to tolerate politicians who do things we don't want them to do. Adultery and other personal transgressions, as well as more public blunders, fall under that heading, don't you think? By the way, you're dead wrong about Clinton. He was not prosecuted for adultery, he was prosecuted for lying under oath about it. And for the record, he was impeached, but not driven from office. People think it means the same thing. Your Clinton hero-worship can't blind you to the fact that he LIED. You may be willing to pass over adultery, but lying under oath about personal doings? I assume you mean "bribes," not "brides." If a politician takes bribes, he's taking money for favors. If he's taking brides, he's Warren Jeffs. I think we have a little disagreement about the definition of the word "personal." In this sense, I think it means anything done personally, especially in private or secret, illegal or not. You think it means anything done personally, especially in private or secret UNLESS it's illegal. While I agree that if an action is illegal, it is always illegal, if a politician does something illegal secretly, it's "personal" first, and illegal after. You say Americans "spend too much time" on politicians' personal lives. You say that unless something is illegal, it is the politicians' business and not ours, the people who elected them. But how do we find out if they've done anything illegal unless we "spend time" on their personal lives. Are you suggesting that their privacy is so sacrosanct that people should not investigate politicians, not for fear that they might uncover something nasty, but that they might NOT? An altogether wrongheaded way of doing things. In conclusion, while I don't know if I approve of the media spouting triumphantly over the sordid wrongs of politicians, I believe the people have a right to know what their leaders are doing. It is almost as important, in fact, as paying attention to the issues. Who dictates our response to the issues? The politicians. Therefore, we should scrutinize what they do PERSONALLY to find out whether we are being well represented. Thank you for an excellent debate. BeatTheDevil.

Politics

America-spends-too-much-time-on-our-politicians-personal-lives-and-not-enough-on-the-issues./1/

The American people have right to arm themselves

Letsdebate24

The American people have right to arm themselves

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

The 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (1791) Notice how it differentiates "the people" from "the militia". It is speaking of American citizens. This amendment was originally created in order to protect the people in the event the government became tyrannical and history has proven that disarming a country does not bode well for its people such as the holocaust in Nazi Germany. <URL>... <URL>... Germany is not the only country to fall victim to gun control You made the comment "do we know how dangerous it is" but im not entirely sure what you mean. Are you referring to the people being allowed to own them in general?

Letsdebate24

The 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (1791) Notice how it differentiates "the people" from "the militia". It is speaking of American citizens. This amendment was originally created in order to protect the people in the event the government became tyrannical and history has proven that disarming a country does not bode well for its people such as the holocaust in Nazi Germany. http://www.infowars.com... http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com... Germany is not the only country to fall victim to gun control You made the comment "do we know how dangerous it is" but im not entirely sure what you mean. Are you referring to the people being allowed to own them in general?

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

Negative the American Revolution was our battle with Britain over our independence and even if that were said during the war it was not adopted into the constitution which is the foundation of how the country is run. I'm not sure what you mean by students There is no guarantee that people will not harm themselves or others with knives either and yet they are perfectly legal. A weapon is nothing more than a tool, it is the will of its wielder that determines how they are used. According to the FBI statistical analysis gun related crime has been declining over the last 10 years or so. <URL>... <URL>... It comes down to common sense, for example: If a car jacker pulls a knife on you would you prefer to have no weapon or would you rather protect yourself with a gun?

Letsdebate24

Negative the American Revolution was our battle with Britain over our independence and even if that were said during the war it was not adopted into the constitution which is the foundation of how the country is run. I'm not sure what you mean by students There is no guarantee that people will not harm themselves or others with knives either and yet they are perfectly legal. A weapon is nothing more than a tool, it is the will of its wielder that determines how they are used. According to the FBI statistical analysis gun related crime has been declining over the last 10 years or so. http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.bjs.gov... It comes down to common sense, for example: If a car jacker pulls a knife on you would you prefer to have no weapon or would you rather protect yourself with a gun?

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

I await my opponents return

Letsdebate24

I await my opponents return

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

Many states have made laws to allow people to defend their property from those that would attempt to steal it such as the case in Texas. Why should we allow someone to hijack our car when we could be the ones to scare them off? To put it in better perspective for you, what if a large man tried kidnapping a young woman (21 years old) are you suggesting that she should not have the right to own a firearm to defend her life? She doesn't know if hes going to kill her and you make the assumption that a carjacker would not try to kill or kidnap either. "you allow him and call the police because that is their work" You stated it perfectly, the police are rarely there when a crime is taking place, they almost always show up after the crime is committed. Imagine if all the women that were brutally raped and murdered had a firearm to defend themselves. There would be far less kidnappings. Americans" is a general term used to describe people. I had assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to people legally old enough to own a firearm. If someone breaks into your house with your children sleeping are you going to ask the person if he will let you call the cops? Or would you rather have a firearm to fend him off? By choosing not to defend yourself you give the power to the criminal. Those that abide the law should not have to fear criminals, it is the criminals that should fear empowered law abiding citizens.

Letsdebate24

Many states have made laws to allow people to defend their property from those that would attempt to steal it such as the case in Texas. Why should we allow someone to hijack our car when we could be the ones to scare them off? To put it in better perspective for you, what if a large man tried kidnapping a young woman (21 years old) are you suggesting that she should not have the right to own a firearm to defend her life? She doesn't know if hes going to kill her and you make the assumption that a carjacker would not try to kill or kidnap either. "you allow him and call the police because that is their work" You stated it perfectly, the police are rarely there when a crime is taking place, they almost always show up after the crime is committed. Imagine if all the women that were brutally raped and murdered had a firearm to defend themselves. There would be far less kidnappings. Americans" is a general term used to describe people. I had assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to people legally old enough to own a firearm. If someone breaks into your house with your children sleeping are you going to ask the person if he will let you call the cops? Or would you rather have a firearm to fend him off? By choosing not to defend yourself you give the power to the criminal. Those that abide the law should not have to fear criminals, it is the criminals that should fear empowered law abiding citizens.

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

I accept the challenge with all gladness but i refuse to agree that americans should own firearm..do we know how dangerous it is?

judeifeanyi

I accept the challenge with all gladness but i refuse to agree that americans should own firearm..do we know how dangerous it is?

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

Indeed, the 2nd amendment stated that but then do you know what the first american revolution in 1776 states?there is no right to own firearms that is recognized...now when you say americans, you are talking about the people, both young and old and equally students. So if students are allowed to own firearms because they are equally americans what will be their fate when they grow up? Do you know they might wound themselves? Indeed americans should not be allowed to own fire arms rather the military and other civil defence

judeifeanyi

Indeed, the 2nd amendment stated that but then do you know what the first american revolution in 1776 states?there is no right to own firearms that is recognized...now when you say americans, you are talking about the people, both young and old and equally students. So if students are allowed to own firearms because they are equally americans what will be their fate when they grow up? Do you know they might wound themselves? Indeed americans should not be allowed to own fire arms rather the military and other civil defence

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

Thank you very much for waiting for my return..now to start with, i acknowledg the fact that you asked a question, if a car jacker should pull a knife what will you do? Now ponder on this question, what are the works of the police? When a car jacker pulls a knife, his not trying to kill you rather he is trying to scare you away and if you are wise, you allow him and call the police because that is their work..let me ask you this question, do you know that Americans constitute of children, old men and women and young boys? And students? So what you are saying is that fire arms should be given to children? Yes because the are equally Americans..indeed do you know what happens, they will misuse it to other dangerous things

judeifeanyi

Thank you very much for waiting for my return..now to start with, i acknowledg the fact that you asked a question, if a car jacker should pull a knife what will you do? Now ponder on this question, what are the works of the police? When a car jacker pulls a knife, his not trying to kill you rather he is trying to scare you away and if you are wise, you allow him and call the police because that is their work..let me ask you this question, do you know that Americans constitute of children, old men and women and young boys? And students? So what you are saying is that fire arms should be given to children? Yes because the are equally Americans..indeed do you know what happens, they will misuse it to other dangerous things

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

Indeed a real combat..that one should defend himself or herself is quite a good thing but not at the expense of your life..you said we are the people that should scare thieves, with what if i may ask? Is it with the firearms? Indeed that is certainly impossible because if 7thieves where to attack your house, with your children sleeping, can you kill all? Will you even know when they will come in? Indeed if you even raise your head they will blow it off. Or what you are trying to say is that 1 is stronger than 7? If Americans should carry firearms, then even thieves will be given firearms also and besides, since they have noticed you you have firearm,what makes you think they won't blow your house immediately? Indeed the work of the police is to regulate this crimes and we have patrol team who will take care of this crimes.you equally raised the issue of a big man trying to kidnap a younglady of about 25..ponder on this, do you think the man will come alone? Do you think he won't be armed? Indeed if Americans should be allowed to carry firearms it means the man will equally carry his arm and more arms which he will use in executing his plans..allowing Americans to carry firearms will even make criminals to be strong and patrol in large number. The big man in question, will kill the lady if the lady draws any arms thank God you said big man..that exactly draws me to my stand in this argument, 'the security of Americans should be tight and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms' indeed if the security of Americans are tight, they can defend the the state and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms because they will harm even close relations in event like fight. This also draws me to what you said about the police not showing in event of crime, indeed if police don't show, then it is the work of the government to strenghten their government and not citizens protecting theirselves in abnormal way..moreover, you talked of ladies been raped and murdered that if they were with firearms, they would have protected themselves, now if a gang of armed robbers of about 6 were to attack a young lady of 23years, will she defend her self with that small pistol? Indeed what she should do is just to alert the police and not trying to risk her life..indeed, American should never be allowed to own firearms because they might even harm the military in event of problem..

judeifeanyi

Indeed a real combat..that one should defend himself or herself is quite a good thing but not at the expense of your life..you said we are the people that should scare thieves, with what if i may ask? Is it with the firearms? Indeed that is certainly impossible because if 7thieves where to attack your house, with your children sleeping, can you kill all? Will you even know when they will come in? Indeed if you even raise your head they will blow it off. Or what you are trying to say is that 1 is stronger than 7? If Americans should carry firearms, then even thieves will be given firearms also and besides, since they have noticed you you have firearm,what makes you think they won't blow your house immediately? Indeed the work of the police is to regulate this crimes and we have patrol team who will take care of this crimes.you equally raised the issue of a big man trying to kidnap a younglady of about 25..ponder on this, do you think the man will come alone? Do you think he won't be armed? Indeed if Americans should be allowed to carry firearms it means the man will equally carry his arm and more arms which he will use in executing his plans..allowing Americans to carry firearms will even make criminals to be strong and patrol in large number. The big man in question, will kill the lady if the lady draws any arms thank God you said big man..that exactly draws me to my stand in this argument, 'the security of Americans should be tight and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms' indeed if the security of Americans are tight, they can defend the the state and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms because they will harm even close relations in event like fight. This also draws me to what you said about the police not showing in event of crime, indeed if police don't show, then it is the work of the government to strenghten their government and not citizens protecting theirselves in abnormal way..moreover, you talked of ladies been raped and murdered that if they were with firearms, they would have protected themselves, now if a gang of armed robbers of about 6 were to attack a young lady of 23years, will she defend her self with that small pistol? Indeed what she should do is just to alert the police and not trying to risk her life..indeed, American should never be allowed to own firearms because they might even harm the military in event of problem..

Society

Americans-have-a-right-to-own-firearms/1/

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for what should be a very interesting debate. I hope that this enhances both of our knowledge on the issues at hand, and the members also walk away from this debate enlightened (or just having learned something). Now, let's begin. I would like to start by clarifying some terms, something my opponent has unfortunately not done. When we speak of the "Patriot act," I will take it to mean the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act passed in 2001 by the United States Congress. When we speak of the "NDAA," based on popular knowledge and context, I will take it to mean the controversial 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. When my opponent says "Americans" I will further take that to mean people who are citizens of the United States. <URL>... I ask my opponent to correct me on any of these points if I have misinterpreted his intent. The premise of this debate was "Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed.," which my opponent then clarified by saying in their opening statement that "These are in direct violation of the constitution." There are three important points my opponent is wrong on. 1. The USA PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution. Although much ado has been made about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and rightly so, the Act has over 100 sections. Not all of those sections are unConstitutional, and though my opponent makes this blanket statement, no one in their right mind would say that the "Study of access" or "Sense of Congress" are unConstitutional sections. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is not unConstitutional, contrary to my opponent's assertion. <URL>... 2. The NDAA needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution. This assertion fails for the same reasons as assertion #1, although on a greater scale and with worse consequences. To date, there have been fifty-two National Defense Authorization Acts, authorizing all manner of funding, from navy boats to intercontinental missiles, to drug task forces and more. Some sections have expired,some have not. If someone were to focus entirely on the 2012 NDAA, there are over 300 Sections, amassing over 1,000 pages long. Were these sections to be haphazardly repealed, many in our military would lose funding, certain protections, and even military families would be seriously hurt. <URL>... The only sections that would fail a test of Constitutionality, as ruled by the 4th District Court of New York on September 12, 2012, are Sections 1021 and 1022. In fact, as the court duly noted, Section 1022 relies on section 1021, so Section 1021 would be the only section that would need to be struck down or altered in some fashion. These sections are blatantly unConstitutional, but to throw out all pay for the military with it is not the way to run a country, and not the way to handle legislation. <URL>... ; 3. These laws need to be repealed. Finally, this fallacy rounds out my opponent's argument. My opponent asserts that these laws need to be repealed, as if that is the only way to fix this problem, or as if it would address the problem at all. Since my argument is that certain sections of both laws are unConstitutional, it would then follow that certain sections of these laws need to be fixed. However, not by repealing them. Firstly, the USA PATRIOT Act may create new authority, but the 2012 NDAA does not. Instead, as according to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, it allows the military to detain a person under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It merely expands who can be targeted, statutorily. <URL>... In essence, everything in the 2012 NDAA, section 1021-22 has been claimed, and exercised, by both the Bush and Obama administrations. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration argued that it could detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield under two premises: the 2001 AUMF, and plenary, or inherent, Commander-In-Chief authority under Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with the first argument, and left the second hanging. After assassinating Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration claimed that their authority was in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. They have since used this "authority" to assassinate 2 other American citizens via drone strike. Repealing the 2012 NDAA, even just the offending section 1021 and 1022, would do absolutely nothing, zip, nada, to prohibit the claimed powers that those sections statutorily codify and slightly expand who can be targeted under. <URL>... Repealing the 2012 NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 would be a useless activity. As to repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, it brings us to our second reason why demanding that isn't a wise course. In a case where repealing the offending sections of a law would actually eliminate the powers therein, demanding a repeal is a largely fruitless, and extremely time-consuming,action. Congressmen are, very obviously, bought and paid for, selling their Oaths and offices to the highest bidder (Some politicians, like Blogoevich, quite literally). To expect to make any meaningful progress turning back legislation introduced to "fight terror" at a national level is quite meaningless, hopeless, and to a certain extent naive. It has taken Congress twelve YEARS to even consider reducing transfer restrictions on cleared Guantanamo Bay prisoners. There has been continued, heated debate on NSA Spying practices, yet Congress has failed to come up with an alternative solution. Instead, when states take it upon themselves to recognize a law as unConstitutional and therefore ignore it, bringing new state laws into the fray, you have the runaway successes of Colorado's marijuana legalization, Vermont's GMO labeling, and more. With regard to the National Defense Authorization Act specifically, 22 states have introduced legislation, and around 50 localities have done the same, recognizing the detention provision, Sections 1021 and 1022, as unConstitutional, and therefore unlawful to implement in that locality. This enacts change much faster, is more effective, and often works better for a community than Federal, one-size-fits-all fixes. <URL>... <URL>... To recap my points of contention. 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. Thank you very much for starting this debate, and I look forward to your reply.

Feelinsofly

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for what should be a very interesting debate. I hope that this enhances both of our knowledge on the issues at hand, and the members also walk away from this debate enlightened (or just having learned something). Now, let's begin. I would like to start by clarifying some terms, something my opponent has unfortunately not done. When we speak of the "Patriot act," I will take it to mean the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act passed in 2001 by the United States Congress. When we speak of the "NDAA," based on popular knowledge and context, I will take it to mean the controversial 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. When my opponent says "Americans" I will further take that to mean people who are citizens of the United States. https://www.aclu.org... I ask my opponent to correct me on any of these points if I have misinterpreted his intent. The premise of this debate was "Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed.," which my opponent then clarified by saying in their opening statement that "These are in direct violation of the constitution." There are three important points my opponent is wrong on. 1. The USA PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution. Although much ado has been made about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and rightly so, the Act has over 100 sections. Not all of those sections are unConstitutional, and though my opponent makes this blanket statement, no one in their right mind would say that the "Study of access" or "Sense of Congress" are unConstitutional sections. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is not unConstitutional, contrary to my opponent's assertion. https://www.eff.org... 2. The NDAA needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution. This assertion fails for the same reasons as assertion #1, although on a greater scale and with worse consequences. To date, there have been fifty-two National Defense Authorization Acts, authorizing all manner of funding, from navy boats to intercontinental missiles, to drug task forces and more. Some sections have expired,some have not. If someone were to focus entirely on the 2012 NDAA, there are over 300 Sections, amassing over 1,000 pages long. Were these sections to be haphazardly repealed, many in our military would lose funding, certain protections, and even military families would be seriously hurt. http://armedservices.house.gov... The only sections that would fail a test of Constitutionality, as ruled by the 4th District Court of New York on September 12, 2012, are Sections 1021 and 1022. In fact, as the court duly noted, Section 1022 relies on section 1021, so Section 1021 would be the only section that would need to be struck down or altered in some fashion. These sections are blatantly unConstitutional, but to throw out all pay for the military with it is not the way to run a country, and not the way to handle legislation. http://www.nytimes.com... ; 3. These laws need to be repealed. Finally, this fallacy rounds out my opponent's argument. My opponent asserts that these laws need to be repealed, as if that is the only way to fix this problem, or as if it would address the problem at all. Since my argument is that certain sections of both laws are unConstitutional, it would then follow that certain sections of these laws need to be fixed. However, not by repealing them. Firstly, the USA PATRIOT Act may create new authority, but the 2012 NDAA does not. Instead, as according to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, it allows the military to detain a person under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It merely expands who can be targeted, statutorily. http://pandaunite.org... In essence, everything in the 2012 NDAA, section 1021-22 has been claimed, and exercised, by both the Bush and Obama administrations. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration argued that it could detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield under two premises: the 2001 AUMF, and plenary, or inherent, Commander-In-Chief authority under Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with the first argument, and left the second hanging. After assassinating Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration claimed that their authority was in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. They have since used this "authority" to assassinate 2 other American citizens via drone strike. Repealing the 2012 NDAA, even just the offending section 1021 and 1022, would do absolutely nothing, zip, nada, to prohibit the claimed powers that those sections statutorily codify and slightly expand who can be targeted under. http://townhall.com... Repealing the 2012 NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 would be a useless activity. As to repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, it brings us to our second reason why demanding that isn't a wise course. In a case where repealing the offending sections of a law would actually eliminate the powers therein, demanding a repeal is a largely fruitless, and extremely time-consuming,action. Congressmen are, very obviously, bought and paid for, selling their Oaths and offices to the highest bidder (Some politicians, like Blogoevich, quite literally). To expect to make any meaningful progress turning back legislation introduced to "fight terror" at a national level is quite meaningless, hopeless, and to a certain extent naive. It has taken Congress twelve YEARS to even consider reducing transfer restrictions on cleared Guantanamo Bay prisoners. There has been continued, heated debate on NSA Spying practices, yet Congress has failed to come up with an alternative solution. Instead, when states take it upon themselves to recognize a law as unConstitutional and therefore ignore it, bringing new state laws into the fray, you have the runaway successes of Colorado's marijuana legalization, Vermont's GMO labeling, and more. With regard to the National Defense Authorization Act specifically, 22 states have introduced legislation, and around 50 localities have done the same, recognizing the detention provision, Sections 1021 and 1022, as unConstitutional, and therefore unlawful to implement in that locality. This enacts change much faster, is more effective, and often works better for a community than Federal, one-size-fits-all fixes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://pandaunite.org... To recap my points of contention. 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. Thank you very much for starting this debate, and I look forward to your reply.

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

See, this is what happens when you don't check your email for a few days. An idea for Debate.org mods: Add text notifications as an option for debate alerts.... I credit my opponent for having a serious working knowledge of both pieces of legislation, something very few debaters, and indeed, activists, have. Unfortunately, since my opponent did not address my points consecutively or concretely, my further answers may be a bit muddied. I will attempt to keep this debate as linear as possible. Looking back on my closing summary in Round #1: 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. In my opponent's opening statements, they concede that neither the entirety of the "NDAA" (I will again assume my opponent means the 2012 NDAA) nor the USA PATRIOT Act is unConstitutional. My opponent only argues that certain sections are unConstitutional, lining up with my first point of contention. This directly contradicts my opponent's statement in Round 1: "These are in direct violation of the constitution" Thus, my opponent concedes that "these" meaning the entire acts, are not wholly in direct violation of the Constitution. In response to my second point of contention, my opponent states: "To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy." To back up his assertion, he claims that, though the AUMF requires the President to tie any individual he chooses to use force against to 9-11, President Obama did not claim Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen assassinated via drone strike, was tied to 9-11.Therefore, the AUMF was not all they needed to commit such acts. This means repealing the detention provisions, section 1021 and 1022, of the 2012 NDAA would actually "hinder" Presidential power. This is a confusing leap in logic, and my opponent is incorrect. 1. Since it seems my opponent assumes that proving the AUMF was no real authority for a military assassination counters my point, I never asserted that the Authorization for Use of Military Force was the ONLY authority the President could pull on to use the powers behind the 2012 NDAA. In fact, I claimed the opposite in Round #1: "In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration argued that it could detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield under two premises: the 2001 AUMF, AND plenary, or inherent, Commander-In-Chief authority under Article II of the Constitution (Emphasis added.)" 2. Anwar-Al-Awlaki's assassination was in September 2011. A military type assassination is allowed under the 2012 NDAA. Yet, the 2012 NDAA was signed on December 31st, 2011...3 months after Awlaki's assassination. Yasir Hamdi, an American citizen militarily detained by the United States, was captured in 2001. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that he could be detained under the 2001 AUMF. The 2012 NDAA was signed 10 years later. Jose Padilla', another American citizen, was detained by the U.S. Military in 2002, and denied a civilian trial as an Enemy Combatant. The 2012 NDAA was signed 9 years later. It is undeniable that the powers statutorily authorized in the 2012 NDAA were claimed, and exercised, before the statute went into effect. As if any further proof is needed, the Federal government issued a memorandum in March 2009, and cited by Federal Judge Katherine Forrest in her May 2012 temporary injunction against Section 1021, claiming the authority to do everything now in the 2012 NDAA: "The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces. " <URL>... Compare this to Section 1021 (b) 1 and (b) 2 of the 2012 NDAA, which defines who can be targeted with military action: "(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." It is evidently clear that, although the statutory authority did not yet exist, the government claimed it anyway. 3. This leads to my final point, which my opponent agrees with although they may not realize it yet. Since my opponent rightly shows that, in a reading of the text, the 2001 AUMF did not grant the President the authority to assassinate an American citizen, as the 2012 NDAA statutorily does, there must be some other authority he claimed. After all, the guy WAS assassinated by an American drone. Indeed there was. Attorney General Eric Holder cited the AUMF as the Presidential authority to do so: "The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)..." <URL>... Although the AUMF does not statutorily allow the President to use military force against an American citizen, Holder claimed it gave the President that authority. Thus, my opponent is wrong when he says "To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the CLAIMED POWERS is a fallacy (Emphasis added.)" Holder literally does not reference the 2012 NDAA when claiming the same power. The claimed powers, even in the one case my opponent picked, existed months before the 2012 NDAA, and will continue to exist long after the 2012 NDAA is repealed. This leads us to my final contention. Repealing these laws is wasted effort and ineffective, and state or local legislation is a better way to go. Since my opponent offers no facts to challenge this, and even partially agrees "Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start.", I conclusively win this point. My foremost apologies for missing round #2, and I look forward to my opponent's reply.

Feelinsofly

See, this is what happens when you don't check your email for a few days. An idea for Debate.org mods: Add text notifications as an option for debate alerts.... I credit my opponent for having a serious working knowledge of both pieces of legislation, something very few debaters, and indeed, activists, have. Unfortunately, since my opponent did not address my points consecutively or concretely, my further answers may be a bit muddied. I will attempt to keep this debate as linear as possible. Looking back on my closing summary in Round #1: 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. In my opponent's opening statements, they concede that neither the entirety of the "NDAA" (I will again assume my opponent means the 2012 NDAA) nor the USA PATRIOT Act is unConstitutional. My opponent only argues that certain sections are unConstitutional, lining up with my first point of contention. This directly contradicts my opponent's statement in Round 1: "These are in direct violation of the constitution" Thus, my opponent concedes that "these" meaning the entire acts, are not wholly in direct violation of the Constitution. In response to my second point of contention, my opponent states: "To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy." To back up his assertion, he claims that, though the AUMF requires the President to tie any individual he chooses to use force against to 9-11, President Obama did not claim Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen assassinated via drone strike, was tied to 9-11.Therefore, the AUMF was not all they needed to commit such acts. This means repealing the detention provisions, section 1021 and 1022, of the 2012 NDAA would actually "hinder" Presidential power. This is a confusing leap in logic, and my opponent is incorrect. 1. Since it seems my opponent assumes that proving the AUMF was no real authority for a military assassination counters my point, I never asserted that the Authorization for Use of Military Force was the ONLY authority the President could pull on to use the powers behind the 2012 NDAA. In fact, I claimed the opposite in Round #1: "In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration argued that it could detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield under two premises: the 2001 AUMF, AND plenary, or inherent, Commander-In-Chief authority under Article II of the Constitution (Emphasis added.)" 2. Anwar-Al-Awlaki's assassination was in September 2011. A military type assassination is allowed under the 2012 NDAA. Yet, the 2012 NDAA was signed on December 31st, 2011...3 months after Awlaki's assassination. Yasir Hamdi, an American citizen militarily detained by the United States, was captured in 2001. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that he could be detained under the 2001 AUMF. The 2012 NDAA was signed 10 years later. Jose Padilla', another American citizen, was detained by the U.S. Military in 2002, and denied a civilian trial as an Enemy Combatant. The 2012 NDAA was signed 9 years later. It is undeniable that the powers statutorily authorized in the 2012 NDAA were claimed, and exercised, before the statute went into effect. As if any further proof is needed, the Federal government issued a memorandum in March 2009, and cited by Federal Judge Katherine Forrest in her May 2012 temporary injunction against Section 1021, claiming the authority to do everything now in the 2012 NDAA: "The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid of such enemy forces. " http://pandaunite.org... Compare this to Section 1021 (b) 1 and (b) 2 of the 2012 NDAA, which defines who can be targeted with military action: "(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." It is evidently clear that, although the statutory authority did not yet exist, the government claimed it anyway. 3. This leads to my final point, which my opponent agrees with although they may not realize it yet. Since my opponent rightly shows that, in a reading of the text, the 2001 AUMF did not grant the President the authority to assassinate an American citizen, as the 2012 NDAA statutorily does, there must be some other authority he claimed. After all, the guy WAS assassinated by an American drone. Indeed there was. Attorney General Eric Holder cited the AUMF as the Presidential authority to do so: "The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)..." http://townhall.com... Although the AUMF does not statutorily allow the President to use military force against an American citizen, Holder claimed it gave the President that authority. Thus, my opponent is wrong when he says "To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the CLAIMED POWERS is a fallacy (Emphasis added.)" Holder literally does not reference the 2012 NDAA when claiming the same power. The claimed powers, even in the one case my opponent picked, existed months before the 2012 NDAA, and will continue to exist long after the 2012 NDAA is repealed. This leads us to my final contention. Repealing these laws is wasted effort and ineffective, and state or local legislation is a better way to go. Since my opponent offers no facts to challenge this, and even partially agrees "Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start.", I conclusively win this point. My foremost apologies for missing round #2, and I look forward to my opponent's reply.

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

1. That is otherwise known as a concession, and I agree. 2. This requires a brief explanation of the difference between "statutory authority" and "claimed authority" If the President has "statutory authority" then he is acting within the limits of a specific law, and the law is narrowly read to give him that authority. If the President has "claimed authority" then he is acting only on his word. He could cite the AUMF, NDAA, Article 2 of the Constitution, or the Mona Lisa for that matter, all that is required is that he "claims" he has authority. Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA will do nothing, as I have already said, to affect his claimed authority. In reality, his claimed authority is all that matters if he executes an American citizen with it. He already has. The only reason the 2012 NDAA was put into place was because it is a legislative "fix" for the power both recent Presidents have already used. It makes legal now what the Executive branch has been doing for years. Repealing it only removes the veneer of legality, it will not, cannot, and does not affect the claimed powers. 3. Whether or not the Federal government declares the use of these provisions, they will be taking a BIG risk every time they use the military to indefinitely detain a person on U.S. Soil. They will want to mitigate that risk as much as possible, and advise local governments on their actions...and to turn a blind eye to them. If state and local governments refuse to turn a blind eye to the unlawful detention of a person by the military, it will cripple the federal government's ability to utilize military detention powers. Federal agents will not risk a firefight with even a lone police department saying "NO." My opponent is close when they attempt to provide a real-world analogy for the difference between the AUMF and the 2012 NDAA. However, this: "Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source." is incorrect. The President, whether Bush or Obama, claiming he has the power to detain/torture/execute an American citizen is what gives the car a turbo boost, because that is what the Executive branch exercised to boost the car/execute and detain American citizens. The 2012 NDAA is just Congress making the boost engine street-legal. Finally, to my opponents last argument. Repealing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA will not slow the Federal government down. It just takes the "street-legal" sticker off the boost engine, while the American people, Guantanamo bay detainees, and citizens abroad still get fried. To believe that the government would pause something as soon as it is illegal, unfortunately requires a great bit of naivete.

Feelinsofly

1. That is otherwise known as a concession, and I agree. 2. This requires a brief explanation of the difference between "statutory authority" and "claimed authority" If the President has "statutory authority" then he is acting within the limits of a specific law, and the law is narrowly read to give him that authority. If the President has "claimed authority" then he is acting only on his word. He could cite the AUMF, NDAA, Article 2 of the Constitution, or the Mona Lisa for that matter, all that is required is that he "claims" he has authority. Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA will do nothing, as I have already said, to affect his claimed authority. In reality, his claimed authority is all that matters if he executes an American citizen with it. He already has. The only reason the 2012 NDAA was put into place was because it is a legislative "fix" for the power both recent Presidents have already used. It makes legal now what the Executive branch has been doing for years. Repealing it only removes the veneer of legality, it will not, cannot, and does not affect the claimed powers. 3. Whether or not the Federal government declares the use of these provisions, they will be taking a BIG risk every time they use the military to indefinitely detain a person on U.S. Soil. They will want to mitigate that risk as much as possible, and advise local governments on their actions...and to turn a blind eye to them. If state and local governments refuse to turn a blind eye to the unlawful detention of a person by the military, it will cripple the federal government's ability to utilize military detention powers. Federal agents will not risk a firefight with even a lone police department saying "NO." My opponent is close when they attempt to provide a real-world analogy for the difference between the AUMF and the 2012 NDAA. However, this: "Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source." is incorrect. The President, whether Bush or Obama, claiming he has the power to detain/torture/execute an American citizen is what gives the car a turbo boost, because that is what the Executive branch exercised to boost the car/execute and detain American citizens. The 2012 NDAA is just Congress making the boost engine street-legal. Finally, to my opponents last argument. Repealing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA will not slow the Federal government down. It just takes the "street-legal" sticker off the boost engine, while the American people, Guantanamo bay detainees, and citizens abroad still get fried. To believe that the government would pause something as soon as it is illegal, unfortunately requires a great bit of naivete.

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

I would like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate. I am genuinely impressed at their knowledge of war on terror legislation, and have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. With that in mind, since my opponent conceded argument number one, I would like to focus on their final two arguments. 2. Repealing the specific offending provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA would be better than leaving them in place. I'm an avid poker player, so I think why this concept is incorrect might be best explained with a card game analogy. The President and the American people are sitting at the poker table. There are three aces down, and one more needed to win the hand. However, the last ace in the deck has already been played, and discarded. The President makes a move to pull another ace out of his sleeve, and Casino security (Congress) catches him red-handed, throws the card away (repeals the 2012 NDAA), and then...walks away from the table. One problem...the President has an entire deck full of aces (claimed powers) to play, and will win the hand every time. Better yet, the American people won't catch it, because they have been told by Casino security that everything is now alright. Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA is like taking away one of the President's aces. Until an official body completely prohibits the powers of the law of war, there will always be another ace to play, and taking away one ace not only doesn't do the American people a lick of good, it gives them a false sense of security that the President has no more aces to play...which only makes it easier to play those aces at any time. Repealing the NDAA makes it easier to detain someone using the military, because it leaves people with a false sense of security while doing nothing to prohibit the claimed powers. That's why it shouldn't be repealed. 3. My opponent states: "In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". " There are two parts to my opponent's statement. The first is somewhat confusing. My opponent essentially saying that we shouldn't makes something illegal because people will just ignore it. If we were to follow this logic, there should be no laws against murder. There should be no laws against theft. There should be no laws against assault. Obviously, this is not a society any of us would want to live, because it is a society without standards. Yet my opponent wants to also repeal the offending provisions of both the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA, which would be in their mind removing the legal cover given to such unConstitutional activity. Removing the legal cover is making something (il)legal, therefore my opponent is contradicting himself. The second is assuming that local law enforcement would cooperate regardless of the law, unlike the Federal government. Essentially, if the 2012 NDAA were repealed, the Federal government would not use the claimed power, but if a local jurisdiction were to do the same, they would ignore their own statements and help the Federal government anyway. Even though this concern stretches beyond the scope of the original debate assertion, which I have proven false by showing that repealing the provisions above was more likely to cause harm than do nothing, and definitely would not help, I it is still misguided. It is well known that people defend the lives and liberties of those closest to them. This is why, in war, it is desirable to make the enemy faceless, evil, and nothing more than a dog in the minds of the soldier. The closer a soldier gets to interacting in a peaceful manner with those they are told are their "enemies," the less likely he is to murder, assault, and hurt them. <URL>... (P. 2-3) Once they understand the threat, local police are much more likely to defend their citizens than a federal agent, or member of the Armed Forces. Especially in a small town. Is it easier to detain and murder your neighbor, or a faceless human being someone called a "terrorist?" Further, it is much easier to pressure local police to uphold the law than it is to pressure a Federal agency to do the same, and much easier to punish the former for violating it. Local police will face pressure from citizens who helped make the activity unlawful in the first place. Local police will face pressure from elected officials, such as a city council, who passed the law in the first place. When and if that law is violated, local police will face angry citizens, while Federal agents will go home to a place where no one knows what they did. Local police may face a high-pressure lawsuit, and could lose the trust of the public, which they rely on, while Federal agents face no personal or professional repercussions for doing a job in a city 800 miles away. My opponent points to Boston as the reason local police are likely to cooperate with Federal agents when asked to violate another's rights. Boston is not anywhere near a good example because: 1. There was no local law on the books banning that action, as I advocated. 2. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, the support necessary to get a law passed was not there, and thus there was little to no local opposition. 3. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, police officers assumed there would be no repercussions for the wholesale violation of rights. This led them to take these actions without the pause and second thought breaking the law ensures. Even further, Federal agents, for the reasons I outlined above, are STILL more likely to violate our rights than a local officer. Thus, the correct, more effective, and workable tactic is to focus on local government and local police to reject the law, having a much better chance at success than repealing the law at a Federal level. To recap, I again note my original my points of contention. 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. Since neither of these statements has been effectively answered, and my opponent conceded the first, it is now up to the debate.org community to pick the winner. I thank my opponent for this lively debate and, especially since this is my first debate here, for making it an intellectually challenging, yet rewarding, experience.

Feelinsofly

I would like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate. I am genuinely impressed at their knowledge of war on terror legislation, and have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. With that in mind, since my opponent conceded argument number one, I would like to focus on their final two arguments. 2. Repealing the specific offending provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA would be better than leaving them in place. I'm an avid poker player, so I think why this concept is incorrect might be best explained with a card game analogy. The President and the American people are sitting at the poker table. There are three aces down, and one more needed to win the hand. However, the last ace in the deck has already been played, and discarded. The President makes a move to pull another ace out of his sleeve, and Casino security (Congress) catches him red-handed, throws the card away (repeals the 2012 NDAA), and then...walks away from the table. One problem...the President has an entire deck full of aces (claimed powers) to play, and will win the hand every time. Better yet, the American people won't catch it, because they have been told by Casino security that everything is now alright. Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA is like taking away one of the President's aces. Until an official body completely prohibits the powers of the law of war, there will always be another ace to play, and taking away one ace not only doesn't do the American people a lick of good, it gives them a false sense of security that the President has no more aces to play...which only makes it easier to play those aces at any time. Repealing the NDAA makes it easier to detain someone using the military, because it leaves people with a false sense of security while doing nothing to prohibit the claimed powers. That's why it shouldn't be repealed. 3. My opponent states: "In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". " There are two parts to my opponent's statement. The first is somewhat confusing. My opponent essentially saying that we shouldn't makes something illegal because people will just ignore it. If we were to follow this logic, there should be no laws against murder. There should be no laws against theft. There should be no laws against assault. Obviously, this is not a society any of us would want to live, because it is a society without standards. Yet my opponent wants to also repeal the offending provisions of both the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA, which would be in their mind removing the legal cover given to such unConstitutional activity. Removing the legal cover is making something (il)legal, therefore my opponent is contradicting himself. The second is assuming that local law enforcement would cooperate regardless of the law, unlike the Federal government. Essentially, if the 2012 NDAA were repealed, the Federal government would not use the claimed power, but if a local jurisdiction were to do the same, they would ignore their own statements and help the Federal government anyway. Even though this concern stretches beyond the scope of the original debate assertion, which I have proven false by showing that repealing the provisions above was more likely to cause harm than do nothing, and definitely would not help, I it is still misguided. It is well known that people defend the lives and liberties of those closest to them. This is why, in war, it is desirable to make the enemy faceless, evil, and nothing more than a dog in the minds of the soldier. The closer a soldier gets to interacting in a peaceful manner with those they are told are their "enemies," the less likely he is to murder, assault, and hurt them. http://www.davidbirkin.co.uk... (P. 2-3) Once they understand the threat, local police are much more likely to defend their citizens than a federal agent, or member of the Armed Forces. Especially in a small town. Is it easier to detain and murder your neighbor, or a faceless human being someone called a "terrorist?" Further, it is much easier to pressure local police to uphold the law than it is to pressure a Federal agency to do the same, and much easier to punish the former for violating it. Local police will face pressure from citizens who helped make the activity unlawful in the first place. Local police will face pressure from elected officials, such as a city council, who passed the law in the first place. When and if that law is violated, local police will face angry citizens, while Federal agents will go home to a place where no one knows what they did. Local police may face a high-pressure lawsuit, and could lose the trust of the public, which they rely on, while Federal agents face no personal or professional repercussions for doing a job in a city 800 miles away. My opponent points to Boston as the reason local police are likely to cooperate with Federal agents when asked to violate another's rights. Boston is not anywhere near a good example because: 1. There was no local law on the books banning that action, as I advocated. 2. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, the support necessary to get a law passed was not there, and thus there was little to no local opposition. 3. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, police officers assumed there would be no repercussions for the wholesale violation of rights. This led them to take these actions without the pause and second thought breaking the law ensures. Even further, Federal agents, for the reasons I outlined above, are STILL more likely to violate our rights than a local officer. Thus, the correct, more effective, and workable tactic is to focus on local government and local police to reject the law, having a much better chance at success than repealing the law at a Federal level. To recap, I again note my original my points of contention. 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. Since neither of these statements has been effectively answered, and my opponent conceded the first, it is now up to the debate.org community to pick the winner. I thank my opponent for this lively debate and, especially since this is my first debate here, for making it an intellectually challenging, yet rewarding, experience.

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

These are in direct violation of the constitution

Letsdebate24

These are in direct violation of the constitution

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

You are correct in your assumptions of which I was referring to. 1. The USA PATRIOT ACT Section 215 has been found to be in violation of the 4th amendment by the ACLU and should be repealed. I apologize for the broad wording I have used in round one but I was expecting someone with a general knowledge that only knows of this particular section. I will be more specific in the following rounds. <URL>... 2. Section 1022 and 1021 of the NDAA have been found in violation of the constitution because it allows government agencies and our military forces to indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil or foreign without evidence or due process. Ron Paul has been one of the key political figures opposing 1021 and 1022. This bill is voted on and passed with flying colors every time its comes up and these two provisions were thrown in knowing full well the entire bill would still be passed despite two needles in a haystack. The NDAA section 1021 and 1022 do in fact expand the governments power by expanding who can be targeted. By creating a broader range of people that can be detained it is an increase in their power. To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy. "Broadly, the AUMF gave Bush the power to, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" Notice how they tie everything to the events of 911. Obama has made no such claim when speaking of the assassination of Anwar. The AUMF was specific to the events of 911 including people which Anwar was never rumored to have any connection. If the AUMF were all they needed to commit such acts the two sections we spoke of would be useless. Section 1021 and 1022 were not claimed to be the basis of his decisions because they were the creation of the Bush administration thus taking some of the pressure off of his latest provisions to the NDAA. In short it was a political tactic used to make oneself look better. Taken from your source "this Court grants plaintiffs" motion and permanently enjoins enforcement of " 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA " Repealing these sections would simply be the start of a governmental renovation so to speak because it would not be possible to repeal the entirety of unconstitutional laws at once. Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start. The administration has been losing support for its tactics and are under a great deal of scrutiny for their actions. I did not state that we should

Letsdebate24

You are correct in your assumptions of which I was referring to. 1. The USA PATRIOT ACT Section 215 has been found to be in violation of the 4th amendment by the ACLU and should be repealed. I apologize for the broad wording I have used in round one but I was expecting someone with a general knowledge that only knows of this particular section. I will be more specific in the following rounds. https://www.aclu.org... 2. Section 1022 and 1021 of the NDAA have been found in violation of the constitution because it allows government agencies and our military forces to indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil or foreign without evidence or due process. Ron Paul has been one of the key political figures opposing 1021 and 1022. This bill is voted on and passed with flying colors every time its comes up and these two provisions were thrown in knowing full well the entire bill would still be passed despite two needles in a haystack. The NDAA section 1021 and 1022 do in fact expand the governments power by expanding who can be targeted. By creating a broader range of people that can be detained it is an increase in their power. To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy. "Broadly, the AUMF gave Bush the power to, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" Notice how they tie everything to the events of 911. Obama has made no such claim when speaking of the assassination of Anwar. The AUMF was specific to the events of 911 including people which Anwar was never rumored to have any connection. If the AUMF were all they needed to commit such acts the two sections we spoke of would be useless. Section 1021 and 1022 were not claimed to be the basis of his decisions because they were the creation of the Bush administration thus taking some of the pressure off of his latest provisions to the NDAA. In short it was a political tactic used to make oneself look better. Taken from your source "this Court grants plaintiffs" motion and permanently enjoins enforcement of " 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA " Repealing these sections would simply be the start of a governmental renovation so to speak because it would not be possible to repeal the entirety of unconstitutional laws at once. Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start. The administration has been losing support for its tactics and are under a great deal of scrutiny for their actions. I did not state that we should

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

I await my opponents return

Letsdebate24

I await my opponents return

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

I agree text notifications would be very efficient. 1. As I corrected myself in my original response, I do not believe both laws are unconstitutional in the entirety just particular sections as named previously. 2. To say that it would have no power is simply false, if it were true these laws would never have come into effect. If it did nothing to expand their power they would not have created them. 3. True a state may refuse to enforce any law that is believed to be unconstitutional but the problem is the federal government is not going to declare when the unconstitutional provisions of these laws are going to be used. They happen and the American public may never know it was the federal government that is responsible. They have become quite infamous for having zero accountability. There would be nothing a state could do to keep the federal government from executing the laws within their state borders except file complaints and the federal government is not likely to halt their operations because of complaints. 1. My opponent made the statement "it allows the military to detain a person under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It merely expands who can be targeted, statutorily" and yet claims that repealing these sections will do nothing to hinder their power. By limiting who can be targeted it will directly affect the scope of their power. Though not a one fix all it is a good start. The AUMF is the ultimate source of power needed for section 1021 and 1022 to be used but that does not negate that the two provisions are an expansion of that power. To compare this scenario to a normal everyday scenario Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source. Removing these two provisions would slow the power of the federal government. 2. My opponent correctly states that the 2012 NDAA was signed after his assassination but I believe he is still missing the main point. While eliminating these provisions to the NDAA will not completely stop the federal government from doing as they please but it is the first step in hindering their power. You cannot chop down a tree with one swing of your axe, it takes repetitive swings at the base of the tree. Cut its foundation out from under it. I never made a claim that if these laws were repealed these situations would come to a halt. The federal government is creating laws faster than we can read them so we have to do the best we can to slow them down. They create different avenues for their actions to be justified so to allow them to continue creating them would be a threat to the American people. They create "branch laws" which are laws that are created for the sole purpose of giving them multiple methods of justifications making it nearly impossible to prove any illegal act was committed. Apologies for the short response but I am not sure if I will be back in time for a full length response.

Letsdebate24

I agree text notifications would be very efficient. 1. As I corrected myself in my original response, I do not believe both laws are unconstitutional in the entirety just particular sections as named previously. 2. To say that it would have no power is simply false, if it were true these laws would never have come into effect. If it did nothing to expand their power they would not have created them. 3. True a state may refuse to enforce any law that is believed to be unconstitutional but the problem is the federal government is not going to declare when the unconstitutional provisions of these laws are going to be used. They happen and the American public may never know it was the federal government that is responsible. They have become quite infamous for having zero accountability. There would be nothing a state could do to keep the federal government from executing the laws within their state borders except file complaints and the federal government is not likely to halt their operations because of complaints. 1. My opponent made the statement "it allows the military to detain a person under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It merely expands who can be targeted, statutorily" and yet claims that repealing these sections will do nothing to hinder their power. By limiting who can be targeted it will directly affect the scope of their power. Though not a one fix all it is a good start. The AUMF is the ultimate source of power needed for section 1021 and 1022 to be used but that does not negate that the two provisions are an expansion of that power. To compare this scenario to a normal everyday scenario Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source. Removing these two provisions would slow the power of the federal government. 2. My opponent correctly states that the 2012 NDAA was signed after his assassination but I believe he is still missing the main point. While eliminating these provisions to the NDAA will not completely stop the federal government from doing as they please but it is the first step in hindering their power. You cannot chop down a tree with one swing of your axe, it takes repetitive swings at the base of the tree. Cut its foundation out from under it. I never made a claim that if these laws were repealed these situations would come to a halt. The federal government is creating laws faster than we can read them so we have to do the best we can to slow them down. They create different avenues for their actions to be justified so to allow them to continue creating them would be a threat to the American people. They create "branch laws" which are laws that are created for the sole purpose of giving them multiple methods of justifications making it nearly impossible to prove any illegal act was committed. Apologies for the short response but I am not sure if I will be back in time for a full length response.

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

2. Again if the 2012 was not useful in expanding the presidents power it would never have come into existence. They simply do not create laws like this that will have no benefit to their power. Removing the legality would make it harder for the president to justify illegal activities. Claimed powers are indeed a problem because the president can and has quite often lately gone outside the proper process under "claimed authority" and there is literally nothing people can do about it. Removing the 2012 NDAA would not be a one fix all but claiming that it would be of no benefit in simply false. The claim that it would fix everything was never made, only that it should be repealed. We have to examine every questionable method used by politicians and eliminate them accordingly. The bottom line is this, repealing the 2012 NDAA and the Patriot Act would have a more positive effect than leaving them in place. 3. In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". When the president uses the NDAA it is to track down supposed terrorists so why should we believe that local governments only going to go along with the hunt for "terrorists" once? They were eager to catch the suspect. If the federal government wanted to avoid any trouble with local governments they would appeal to them the same way they did in Boston. People tend to see the hunt for terrorists as a justified cause but when a gun ban was attempted they seen it as stepping over the lines and an attack on their constitutional rights. People do not see potential terrorists as having the same rights as a law abiding citizen and this is the type of tactic the president would most likely use to avoid any conflicts. Regarding the car example: Making it legal is exactly what expanded the presidents power. If there were no laws enforcing his claimed power executing such actions would become more difficult. While my opponent has stated that repealing the 2012 NDAA would be of no benefit he has failed to offer any clear alternative. The more the president is able to have these laws enacted to legalize any actions taken the more difficult it is going to be for the American people to undue. The federal government is gaining power by an order of magnitude and eliminating laws that are not in the best interest of the American people is the first step to hindering their power. As I stated before repealing these laws is not going to be a one fix all because no such fix exists. Any action the American people take is going to take time and persistence to be truly effective.

Letsdebate24

2. Again if the 2012 was not useful in expanding the presidents power it would never have come into existence. They simply do not create laws like this that will have no benefit to their power. Removing the legality would make it harder for the president to justify illegal activities. Claimed powers are indeed a problem because the president can and has quite often lately gone outside the proper process under "claimed authority" and there is literally nothing people can do about it. Removing the 2012 NDAA would not be a one fix all but claiming that it would be of no benefit in simply false. The claim that it would fix everything was never made, only that it should be repealed. We have to examine every questionable method used by politicians and eliminate them accordingly. The bottom line is this, repealing the 2012 NDAA and the Patriot Act would have a more positive effect than leaving them in place. 3. In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". When the president uses the NDAA it is to track down supposed terrorists so why should we believe that local governments only going to go along with the hunt for "terrorists" once? They were eager to catch the suspect. If the federal government wanted to avoid any trouble with local governments they would appeal to them the same way they did in Boston. People tend to see the hunt for terrorists as a justified cause but when a gun ban was attempted they seen it as stepping over the lines and an attack on their constitutional rights. People do not see potential terrorists as having the same rights as a law abiding citizen and this is the type of tactic the president would most likely use to avoid any conflicts. Regarding the car example: Making it legal is exactly what expanded the presidents power. If there were no laws enforcing his claimed power executing such actions would become more difficult. While my opponent has stated that repealing the 2012 NDAA would be of no benefit he has failed to offer any clear alternative. The more the president is able to have these laws enacted to legalize any actions taken the more difficult it is going to be for the American people to undue. The federal government is gaining power by an order of magnitude and eliminating laws that are not in the best interest of the American people is the first step to hindering their power. As I stated before repealing these laws is not going to be a one fix all because no such fix exists. Any action the American people take is going to take time and persistence to be truly effective.

Society

Americans-should-demand-the-Patriot-act-and-the-NDAA-be-repealed/1/

An atheist does not need to believe that something came from nothing. Character Limits......................

Puck

An atheist does not need to believe that something came from nothing. Character Limits......................

Science

An-atheist-must-believe-something-comes-from-nothing./1/