Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

94247caa-2019-04-18T14:12:45Z-00008-000

More power than any good man would want, or any bad man should haveIn 2009, the Federal Reserve said that in the case of an economic emergency, they can implement a martial law of a sort, that they do quite literally have a blank check as to how much money they can print, how much money they can give away, how low they can make interest rates, and how much inflation they can cause.Yet we see no Supreme Court trials calling them communists even though they are a communist agency considering the type of power they have, and the extent to which they violate our constitution.Point 5: History and the History of Central Banks:There is nothing new under the sun, everything that is has been before and everything that was shall be again.The first recorded central bank was the bank of England, the Bank of England was created by a group of British bankers who proposed the bill so that the British Government could loan money to finance the Seven Years War. The British crown ended up knee deep in debt, and had to raise extreme and unfair taxes to pay it all back, and this resulted in the reasonable revolt of the thirteen colonies.The second central bank in recorded history was the Bank of North America, the bank issued 1.2 million dollars into our economy, considering that this is early America, and adapted to inflation, this would be a massive amount. Prices doubled, the nation was knee deep in debt; the Bank ruined America. Then Alexander Hamilton formed "The First Bank of the United States", in 1807, our economy fell apart as a result of over printing.And yet, we attempted this same system by which we sell shares in our nation"s economy through a central bank; we founded the Second Bank of the United States, but in 1832 President Jackson vetoed a bill to recharter the bank with the reasonable concern of such an establishments power over elections by the money system, he was shot at but not hit in 1835. In 1837 we suffered the backlash with yet another recession.Later we again attempted this system, we created the Federal Reserve. In the booming 20"s the Federal Reserve implemented loose monetary policy, causing low interest rates and a surplus of money, causing inflation which in turn caused stock prices to rise, which caused people to invest in stocks in hopes of them being worth more later, causing a bubble. The Federal Reserve implemented strict monetary policy, causing people to be unable to pay their loans, causing bank runs, causing the great depression. The same happened in 2009, the only difference is that people invested in houses rather than stocks.In 2009, a series of transactions occurred, adding up to a grand total of 9 Trillion Dollars, this is no crazy conspiracy theory, and this is solid fact. There was in fact a senate hearing to asses this, the Inspector General, the person who is supposed to oversee all the Federal Reserve"s actions had no clue what happened. Then the Federal Reserve, six years after, thought that we would be so dumb as to believe that it was a bail out. There is only 9.36 trillion dollars in our economy, if this was a bail out, we would have 18.36 trillion in our economy. I don"t know what happened to it obviously, I don"t know if the Federal Reserve pocketed it, or if Alan Greenspan had a big gambling debt and was threatened with his kneecaps.Point 6: Free trade and the Federal Reserve:In point 1, I talked about how the Federal Reserve has eliminated our free trade. This is among the biggest point I have to make, the Federal Reserve"s monetary policy schemes and totalitarian authority over our economy, enables it to bail out any of its fellow money trust members. It entrenches its fellow private corporations; entrenchments, monopolies, and totalitarian powers are among the greatest threats to free trade, and fair trade, the Federal Reserve implements all three of these. They are a beurocratic, feudal, communist, privately owned autocratic agency, their very existence offends me. For a private corporation to implement powers it was never ensured, with no regard for our government, our constitution, or our laws, and implement a communist totalitarian authority foreign to our constitution. This is a system based upon the separation of powers, free trade, and the idea that every person ought to have an equal shot. Not totalitarian powers, communism, and the idea that the common man is "unable to make his own decisions", this is the most backward, discussing idea I have ever seen.This is the most outrageous group of reprobates I have seen in my life; these commies have eliminated our free trade in favor of their own communist agendas! Their own despicable private interests! This abomination of ours called the "Federal Reserve" is nothing more than a group of reprobate con men and communists.Point 7: The Federal Reserve and the Federal Government:As we all know the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Right about now you are saying "but it isn"t, the president and congress elect the board of governors bla blab la bla la", well I was surprised to find that it isn"t! The president only elects two of the 7 board of governors.Here is how the Federal Reserve works:So you have these banks that own stock in the Federal Reserve, they elect the director of their regional bank. The directors from the 12 regional banks get together in this thing called the "open market committee", which controls monetary policy. Then you got these guys called "the board of governors", there are 7 of them, 5 of which the president elects. So much for that "democratic money system" stuff they put in the history books.So let me get this straight, we have the open market committee which decides monetary policy, which is controlled by the board of directors (to make it all the more confusing they made both a "board of directors", and a "board of governors"), which is in turn controlled by these BANKS, now all these schemes are finally making sense. Take 2008 for example, the banks tell the Federal Reserve to drop interest rates, then the banks start this "mortgage" campaign. The banks tell the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy, people cannot pay their loans off, and the banks get their houses for pennies on the dollar."The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The Banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than beoracracy."- Abraham Lincoln.

51d6d74d-2019-04-18T15:18:10Z-00001-000

I think we should be able to but also a little we shouldn't because you could get distracted and not do your work instead just play with your hat but you would get a chance to express yourself

41272f07-2019-04-18T18:31:56Z-00001-000

"Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate." My opponent has failed to explain why any kind of death penalty should be abolished. My opponent did not specify before the debate started that the topic of death penalty was only limited to its current use in the United States. My opponent wishes to make known of his intentions AFTER the debate started. I find this to be an irresponsible condition opposed upon me by my opponent because I accepted this debate only on the conditions of which were supplied at the time of acceptance. At the time, I was accepting the position of 'Pro' for A death penalty. Notice how neither the title of the debate nor anything written in the comments section before the debate started includes anything specific that says "Resolved: The current death penalty system instituted in the United States should be abolished". I am within my bounds to be arguing for a death penalty, not THE death penalty. In this case, I would like to supply some definitions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Death - a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life [1] Penalty - 1. A legal sentence. 2. A punishment for violating rules of procedure. [2] Punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. [3] Voluntary - done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution. [4] Recidivism - the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. [6] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The definition of a death penalty can be construed from the definitions above as a legal sentence subjecting a person to death. My stance on the subject of a death penalty is that a death penalty should remain in the United States, but it should be entirely different than the current death penalty. A decision to undergo the death penalty should be a voluntary choice made by a convict who would have the option of life in prison or death. I have no doubt that a portion of criminals sentenced to life in prison would rather opt for the death penalty than a life sentence. This is evident by the fact that a large number of murder-suicides occur in the United States in which after a person commits murder, they take their own life. The source and evidence for this argument is listed in the first round of the debate. R1: Cost "SO your "the defendant chooses" is false. The judge in the end chooses, defendant just gets to plea to try to weaken the sentence." It is most definitely not false. In a voluntary death penalty, the defendant WOULD be able to choose. Remember, the argument is not about the current US death penalty, but is about A death penalty. So it is the trial itself under the DP that is expensive. That is what I have said all along. A voluntary death penalty would eliminate the bulk of the cost that it takes to execute a criminal because the legal appeals process which costs the most money would be eliminated. The appeals process exists because convicts who are fighting the state do not want to receive the death penalty. The people who would fight the death penalty in the future would not be sentenced to the death penalty in a voluntary death penalty, they would be sentenced to life in prison, therefore eliminating the appeals process in death penalties that costs the most amount of money in the current death penalty in the US. Also you concede that the DP costs more. I stated that the current death penalty costs more. A voluntary death penalty would cost so much less than the current death penalty, and would cost less than life in prison simply because the costs for food, health and shelter would amount to $0 after the criminal is executed. The states would actually save $1.5 million in living costs per convict if the convict opts for the voluntary death penalty over life in prison [5]. R2: The death penalty does not deter crime. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. Fantastic. Then if deterrence isn't a major issue in deterring crime, then why are you debating that the death penalty doesn't deter crime if any other form of punishment isn't made to deter crime either? If the sole purpose of rules of law aren't even made to deter crime, you have just defeated your own argument. You make it seem that deterrence is a negligible issue. R3: The DP infringes international law. I agree with your statements on the current death penalty. But not all death penalties would violate this law. A voluntary death penalty would allow a convict to have more personal liberties than the current death penalty and a convict would also have the right to life or death based on his choice. R4: Risk of executing innocents I fail to see how an innocent person would want to opt for death under a voluntary death penalty. Even so, it's a person's right to life or death and a government shouldn't be infringing on 'international law' that you cite in this debate because it would infringe on liberty of the person to govern their own body. R5: Death sentences are racist and unfair "Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate." Like I said above, I am arguing for A death penalty, not the current death penalty. You did not specify that as a condition of the debate when I accepted the debate. Therefore you MUST convince the voters that the United States would be better off without a death penalty, and I am convincing the voters that the United States would be better with A death penalty. Notice that the topic is simply 'Death Penalty' and that you did not provide any additional information to what your resolution was for the debate. Therefore I am obligated to argue within my bounds, and my bounds are that I am arguing for a Death Penalty in the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In conclusion, the United States would be better off with a voluntary death penalty than without one at all. - It would be cheaper than life imprisonment by saving 1.5 million dollars per inmate. - It would give the convict the right to make a decision on their continuation of life. - It would eliminate the possibility of the criminal from being released back into society and committing recidivism. Voters: Because the debate resolution later admitted by my opponent was not provided at the beginning of the debate, I strongly urge you to base your decision on who convinced you more on the argument that a death penalty of some kind is better or worse than any kind of death penalty at all. I hope that after reviewing all of the debate, you make the right decision and vote Pro! :) Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wiktionary.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.heartsandminds.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...

38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00001-000

This is a debate about what "should" be done. If one debates the topic "Resolved: People should brush their teeth every morning," that is debating whether it is a good idea or not, not whether it ought to be made a law. What we are debating here is whether school uniforms are a good idea or not. 1) The original contention was that the policy "promotes identity with the school and class, ... so they are more likely to help each other succeed." Con appears to grant that it works for sports teams and the military, but ultimately claimed that education had no aspects other than individual performance. Given a list of team aspects, Con argued " ... when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom." This is non-responsive, and it is wrong to suppose that only factors occurring in the classroom affect the quality of education. Uniforms promote unity of purpose, and that affects individual performance. Note that even gang members wear identifiable colors or styles because they are well aware it promotes unity of purpose, even though their purpose is anti-social. Con introduces a new argument that we should not implement any educational policy that is not proved effective. There is ample evidence the policy is effective, as Con was only able to produce one bogus study to the contrary (discussed below). However, Con's contention, if followed, makes it impossible to ever improve education, because to prove a policy effective it has to be tried, and Con asserts that we should never try anything that hasn't been proved. Con abandoned arguments that uniforms should not be required because some students wouldn't like them. 2) The second reason reason was that the policy removes a distraction and helps focus. Con argued that other distractions are possible, but made no argument that distractions would not be reduced. Examples of costume helping focus were cited, notably the tradition of judges wearing robes. Con did not rebut any example or the conclusion. Con argued that both that uniforms would mark students as targets after school, and that students would change out of their uniforms the minute that school ended. Con gave no reason why changing out of uniforms would not solve the problem he supposed, if it ever occurred. Con argues that having students decide how to dress under guidelines promotes maturity. This supposes that creativity is the major mark of maturity, not self-discipline, a wrong assumption. Con offers no evidence that students avoid immature behavior went given nothing more than guidelines. Clearly, the opposite is true. Boys seek $200 sneakers and girls seek a closet full of fashions. Without a requirement for discipline, students tend to behave with less discipline. 3) The third reason is that "It teaches boys to be neat and girls to be attractive." Con argues that social pressure will make students conform to standards of neatness and attractiveness, but that all social pressure constitutes "bullying." There is no doubt that students will always apply and respond to social pressure, the problem is therefore to attempt to channel social pressure on to desirable paths. It is better to have students pressuring each other to be neat, that to pursuit foolish fads or engage in destructive gang behavior. 4) The fourth reason is that "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con again argues that any form of social pressure constitutes bullying. That is not responsive to the argument that some targets of social pressure are less destructive than others. 5) "It allows individuals to express themselves in fashion outside of school, which reinforces the distinct nature of the educational environment." This is a variant of the "judicial robes" argument, in which a distinct attire enforces behavior suited to the task. Examples were cited of the best schools overseas, in Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong, where having uniforms helps maintain a focus on education that leads to better performance. In the US, the Catholic schools, which mostly have uniforms, succeed better than public schools. Con argues that there are many differences besides uniforms that lead to better performance. Its true that there are many differences, but they all relate to discipline and focus. I grant that just having uniforms will not solve all problems. However it is step in the right direction, and we know it is in the right direction because it moves towards the constellation of attributes associated with focus and discipline. Before-and-after studies in the Long Beach and Baltimore schools show that uniforms achieve positive effects. Con cites Brunsma and Rockquemore study, which purports to show there is no effect. It is a classic case of a bogus study. Con did not reference the actual study, which is posted at http://sociology.missouri.edu... The key defects are that the study contained almost no public schools, and even more importantly, never considered data from the same school before and after the policies were implemented. They basically end up studying schools that already had high levels of discipline, and conclude that if all else is right, then uniforms make no difference. The authors made statistical corrections for the statistically biased sample, but they give almost no information on what they did in order to get the answer they sought. They admit, for example, that Catholic schools achieve better performance, but they apply corrections to the data so it doesn't correlate to uniforms. The authors claim to be surprised by their results, but go on to reveal clear bias. For example, they dismiss the solid before-and-after case of the Long Beach School system by saying that a $1 million study ($10/student) introduced unspecified "educational reforms" that produced the dramatic changes. If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the "reforms" would surely be adopted universally, which they were not. Beyond that, the authors would surely name the reforms if they were so compelling, but they did not. Moreover, absolutely no one in the school system attributed the improvements to anything but the uniform policy. The authors bias shows throughout their intemperate and unjustified conclusions. A statistics package in the hands of a social scientist remains a dangerous thing. They should wear tuxedos when they sit down at the computer; it would promote discipline. The authors made one valid point. They suggest that the parental involvement that precipitated a policy of requiring uniforms in Long Beach may have precipitated other improvements. I suggest that parents and educators showing that they cared about educational performance had a positive effect upon performance. That's a good result and a good reason for parents and educators showing they care by adopting a uniforms policy else where. Late in the debate, Con argued that cost was a reason for not adopting a uniform requirement. In fact, one of the main reasons that Baltimore parents wanted to have school uniforms was to reduce clothing costs. Chasing fashion fads and buying many different stylish outfits is far more expensive than just a few uniforms. However, while costs are lower for middle and upper income families, there is a potential hardship for poor families. It is well worth it for the school system to provide uniforms to such families. The uniforms are guaranteed to be used, so poor kids get better clothing and costs are lowered overall. Adopting school uniforms will not solve all the problems of education. Before-and-after studies show significant improvements in performance, and virtually all of the top schools systems in the US and abroad have uniform policies as part of an overall program that focuses student

38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00003-000

Con argues that "the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms." Actually, the government can pass a law to require it if they chose. However, the operative notion for this debate is "should." the question here is only whether or not it is a good idea. I would leave it up to local school boards to accept the idea. However, if con thinks that implementation is a fundamental barrier, then we can amend the Constitution to allow the mandate. 1) I too would not have liked to have been forced to wear a uniform in high school, and I agree that many students would not like it. However, many students do not like to be forced to attend school at all, or to learn math or science or reading, or to do homework. Nonetheless, all those things are imposed for the sake of education. Con argues "helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism." Among the things that students can do to help each other succeed in education are: provide upper class mentoring of students in lower grades, minimize the social pressure to goof off rather than study, value the debate team along with the basketball team (well, maybe that is a bit much to ask for, but you get the idea), provide peer encouragement to "do your best", and provide a respectful participatory class environment. Con offers no evidence that discipline is unimportant for general education, or that creativity is suppressed in general by having uniforms. Maturity is often defined as "accepting postponement of the gratification of wants." That means learning to accept discipline and to impose self-discipline. Therefore, these are valid educational goals. Now, I agree the discipline thing can be overdone, but I cannot see any argument that American schools are now over-disciplined. We should move in that direction. 2) Con argues "surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another." Yes, students can find other ways to misbehave, but that doesn't mean uniforms won't help. Having laws against bank robbery does not prevent bank robbery, but the laws help. I have no problem with students changing out of uniforms when they are not in class, in fact I think that helps reinforce the concept that there is a focused "education mode" and a "non-education" mode. Compare it to judges wearing robes. It helps the judge maintain a judicial attitude, and it helps participants afford respect to the judge in his judicial role. If the judge had on a comfy jogging suit and sneakers in the courtroom, we would rightly be concerned that he was not focused on justice. It would be counterproductive if judges wore their robes all the time; similarly, uniforms should be tied to the learning environment. 3) Con argues, "Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape?" Actually, Con previously argued social pressure would do so, "it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group..." That would be a significant improvement over competition through expensive fashion fads. The larger point, however, is that the best a school can do is teach; it cannot guarantee that each person will learn. The argument for teaching is that many will learn, even though some do not. 4) I argued, "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con argued again that students may find other ways to misbehave. Again, that is not grounds for failing to do the best job of teaching possible. 5) con gave no reasons of evidence to support his contention that "Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment." He discounted the Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong examples to the contrary on the grounds that there were many other differences in the school systems other than uniforms. I granted those many differences at the outset, however, the common theme in all of the differences is that there is more strict environment, not a less strict environment. I have not claimed that uniforms were the only factor or that adopting uniforms would perform miracles. The contention is solely that they move in the direction of having more focused educational environment, and that would improve academic achievement. the notion that students are less likely to want to learn in a focused environment is clear contradicted by the evidence. 6) Con previously argued that students would immediately change out their uniforms the minute school ended. If there is a problem, that's a good solution. Note that there is larger problem with students wearing gang colors or clothing styles that provoke violence. there are cases of students being attacked because they unknowingly wore gang colors. Uniforms solve that problem. 7) There is no reason why uniforms need be uncomfortable. I allowed that parents and administrators should adapt to local circumstances. Fairbanks will be different from Key West. 8) Teachers should do nothing to enforce uniform requirements. That is a job for the school administration. Increased discipline helps teachers. Classes in Japan and elsewhere are much larger than in the US, yet they deliver better education. This is only possible because there are fewer behavior problems. 9) Con asks for additional evidence, while providing no counter-evidence of his own. The largest and most prominent example of a school uniform policy experiment in the United States is that of the Long Beach Unified School District, the third largest school district in California having 97,000 students in 90 public school programs, with 46 different languages spoken by local students: "The quantitative outcomes of the policy have been remarkable. Crime report summaries are now available for the five-year post-uniform policy period and reflect that school crime overall has dropped approximately 86%, even though K-8 student enrollment increased 14%. The five categories of school crime where comparisons can be made between 1993 levels and 1999 levels are as follows: (a) sex offenses down 93% (from 57 to 4 offenses); (b) robbery/extortion down 85% (from 34 to 5 cases); (c) selling or using chemical substances down 48% (from 71 to 37 cases); (d) weapons or look-a-likes down 75% (from 145 to 36 cases); and (e) dangerous devices down 96% (from 46 to 2 cases; LBUSD, 1999). ... Analysis of attendance figures has also provided interesting outcomes for the uniform initiative. In the fourth year that school uniforms have been required in K-8 grades, the percent of actual attendance reached almost 95%, noted as the highest point in the 18 years that the district has maintained statistics. Middle schools also registered comparable improvements in student attendance reaching almost 95% (LBUSD, 2002)." http://findarticles.com... The city of Baltimore provides another major experiment with positive results: "Eddie Scott, principal at Meade Middle on Fort Meade, tells the Baltimore Sun's writer, Anica Butler, "There's research that shows a correlation between appropriate dress and academic performance." Students will not be distracted with who is wearing what brand of jeans, shoes or shirts. Students can focus on learning which is why they are there." http://educationalissues.suite101.com... In addition to the experience of foreign countries, there are also the evidence of private and and parochial schools that generally require uniforms and achieve better performance. The policies work most effectively when parents support them, as in Long Beach and Baltimore, and there are examples when other factors overwhelm the effect of having uniforms. Requiring uniforms is a step in the right direction.

38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00004-000

I accept my opponent's definition of "school uniform. " However, my opponent has to realize that the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms if it chooses not to require them if he hasn't realized such a thing. I also ask that any videos not be looked at until I ask you dear reader. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I shall now jump into my opponent's points and begin to refute: 1. ) As a high schooler, I know full well that I would hate certain aspects of my school with or without school uniforms. In fact, being forced to wear school uniforms will make me dislike my school more. My opponent talks about helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism. There is rarely team "tests or team essays which are the majority of grades in most classes. Comparing sport teams to school is like apple and oranges. In fact, many students would feel like the school is more of a dictatorship then anything with uniforms. Again, school uniforms suppresses individualism and discourages teachers to recognise students for their different personalities, character, and abilities. School Uniforms also stop students from taking responsibility for the aspect of dressing themselves for a public environment. Uniforms fit for Military schools where unity, and discipline are key along with following orders. Not public school where creativity, and being yourself are key elements. Private schools do not matter in this debate as I've shown above. 2. ) It surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another. Furthermore, it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group. Other students will simply bring a outfit from home to change into the minute class ends. I would know as many of my friends (both boys and girls) attend private catholic schools where uniforms are required. (Oh and they hate the uniforms). 3. ) School Uniforms alone do not teach boys to be neat and girls to be attractive. Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape? All school uniforms reenforce is wearing semi-formal outfits in school. 4. ) Again, untrue as I've already proven above. My opponent also fails to realize that if this was true then it would only make other students get bullied more often if not more for simply acting differently or having a different personality. 5. ) Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment. The Japan cosplay example my opponent gives is a rare one at best and this entire point really is invalid since students can express themselves in fashion outside of school without school uniforms. This link explores the difference between Japanese and U. S. schools: . http://sitemaker.umich.edu... Japanese students go to school for 240 days out of the year compared to 180 for American students and Japanese students go in for a half day of instruction on saturday. Japan also uses it's school funding better then America since getting to the students to the school is less of a issue in Japan. This link explores Taiwan schools: . http://en.wikipedia.org... From the Link: "It has been criticised for placing excessive pressure on students and eschewing creativity in favour of rote memorization. " There is a difference between teaching and turning students into robots who merely repeat what they been programmed to do. "Students often stay as late as 8 or 9 PM for "extra classes" which is explored more after the link jump. We have nothing near that for public schools in America. Kids in Taiwan also stay more days a year in school then U. S. students. This link explores Hong Kong schools: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hong Kong students spend roughly 195 days a year in school, and like the other two countries have a higher amount of work ethic and amount for their schools. To quote the link: "The current workload of a primary student in Hong Kong includes approximately 3 to 4 hours of schoolwork nightly. " Does everyone notice a pattern? How school uniforms are barely mentioned if at all in these links? How more school work, days in a school year, and format are the reasons why these schools have the best scores on international tests. If my opponent truly wants to improve schools, I'd advise making a separate debate about changing the format of public schools. Adding school uniforms will do nothing but create a negative impact as I've shown throughout this debate. So therefore, logic says that CON (me) should win this debate. Other reasons why school uniforms are a bad idea: 6. ) School uniforms would make students very identifiable outside of school and would make the divisions between schools wider. This would only lead to more bullying and fights to develop between students from rival schools as they travel to and from school. If my opponent does not believe such a thing could happen, I ask him and the reader to now look at the first, second, and third video in order in which rival schools fight at basketball and Lacrosse games where each side knows where the other stands obviously. In the first two videos, students and others from each school are fighting while in the third video it is the players from the schools who fight constantly throughout the game. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... 7. ) Uniforms cause major discomfort to the student and therefore distract the student for learning. The uniforms which are particularly bad for girls who have to wear skirts. They have to wear them all year around, this includes in the coldest of winter months. There is also the hottest months of the year that can affect the student having to wear uniforms. 8. ) This is related to #7 but a point all on it's own. This serves as a distraction for the teacher to make sure all teachers are enforcing said dress code and therefore takes time out of the class. This is bad both for the teacher who is now behind in teaching the class and the students who will be forced to learn something a little faster at the very least due to what should be a non-relevant issue like clothing except for the fact all students are now required to wear uniforms they don't like or want to wear. 9. ) No substantial evidence offered by my own opponent as to why School Uniforms would be superior to regular clothing outside naming three countries that have the highest test scores for reasons I have listed above. With that, I do believe I have refuted all my opponent's points. I will sum up as to why exactly I have won this debate in the third round. So I would just like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and of course you the reader for taking the time out of your day/evening to read it. I cannot wait to see my opponent's 2nd round argument so we may continue this debate. Thank You

c8ff866-2019-04-18T19:56:46Z-00001-000

its not only hunger if we are spending are welfare on food how will we pay the bills and if we caint will be put out on the streets i dont agree with you that it should be gone if you can give me one reason why welfare should be abbolished maybe id agree

c8ff866-2019-04-18T19:56:46Z-00004-000

I would again like to welcome my opponent and hope he takes up this debate. I will make my opening argument short and sweet again, as I am new to this website. I hold the view that all welfare should be abolished, as well as entitlement programs. The minimum wage should no longer exist, and we should not cater to the poor as if they were our children. Any attempts at helping the poor are good in heart, but generally create unfair advantages and harm the poor more than they help the poor.

80f21523-2019-04-18T15:05:00Z-00005-000

if people wont vote their will be imbalance in the democracy . All the people have the right to vote and they should use the right given to them . People should be made aware of the candidates if we wont tell them then they wont get to know abt it ever we shld help our country to become an socialized place . If we wont our country to be at the top we need to bring all of them together .Bring unity among people. voting shld be made compulsary so ppl get to know abt it

80f21523-2019-04-18T15:05:00Z-00000-000

Having the majority of people involved in elections would be ideal. People need to be inspired to learn about the issues and support someone who they trust in making positive changes. I think this can best be done by eliminating and reprimanding the many corrupt officials that make people distrust the government, and then for the public to commend candidates for their education and experience in public affairs, rather than their charisma and money to promote themselves. None of this can be achieved by making voting compulsory, but by making it appealing and fixing the social problem that lies at its core.

5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00003-000

I apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source "..." this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment "Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways." can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. " This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 "Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced." [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes "Blue tongue disease", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state "Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all." Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes "Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis." Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section "Toward Rational Meat Eating" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly "Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction." "Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits." So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con "Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues." Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote "Environmental Protection Agency " calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables." [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument "However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals." It"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 "" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans." But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org...

5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00005-000

There was a reason I wanted to debate an actual vegan instead of a devil's advocate. But since this is where we're at, and you've decided to play the part, I'll debate as if you are a vegan. This puts you in an interesting position, I don't know if you're vegetarian or omnivore but I wonder if you are capable of introducing an argument so convincing that you yourself convert to veganism, or at least seriously consider it. On to the debate! For your Round 1 comments I will wait for you to expound upon them in round 2 and rebuttal in Round 3. Please note my overall argument is not a rejection of vegetables, but merely to point out that meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's plate, nutritionally and morally. Humans are omnivores, as such we should eat meat too. My First Round argument will be divided into main 3 parts: 1. Eating meat is not inherently unhealthy. 2. Eating meat is not inherently immoral. 3. A Beneficial Symbiosis. Eating Meat is Not Inherently Unhealthy: I begin with this because I believe it is the easiest to prove and I hope to make this case solid in Round 2 in order to devote more time to the morality of meat eating for the rest of the debate. My evidence in this section will appeal to Ethos. Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced. For example asparagus is healthy, but when slathered in lard and fried it becomes more detrimental than beneficial (but infinitely more delicious). If you raise corn in a sewer the corn will be unhealthy. As such meat can be healthy provided it is not processed or cooked in an unhealthy manner [1 See: Point 3 "Bottom Line"]. With this in mind meat can be prepared in a way that compliments a balanced diet. According to the Mayo Clinic grass fed beef (high quality) has been shown to contain nutrients that are beneficial to heart health. Grass fed beef contains "More heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. More conjugated linoleic acid, a type of fat that's thought to reduce heart disease and cancer risks. More antioxidant vitamins, such as vitamin E. Lean beef that's 10 percent fat or less ... can be part of a heart-healthy diet." [2]. Fish meat is also highly recommended in ones diet. According to the Harvard School of Public Health; along with various vital nutrients "There is strong evidence that eating fish or taking fish oil is good for the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of 20 studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants indicates that eating approximately one to two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish a week -- salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, or sardines -- reduces the risk of dying from heart disease by 36 percent." [3] Given this evidence I am confident in saying that eating meat can be a healthy part of a well balanced diet, and is not inherently detrimental as vegans would have us believe. Eating Meat is Not Inherently Immoral: This section is tricky to prove given the reality of the current mode of meat production. I acknowledge that currently meat farms treat their animals in immoral and inhumane ways such as keeping them in small cages, not allowing the animals to move, giving them "drugs to fatten them faster and keep them alive in conditions that could otherwise kill them", and "Genetically [altering them] to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they naturally would (many animals become crippled under their own weight and die just inches away from water and food)" [4]. Under these conditions even I agree that supporting this tortuous system of food production is immoral. However I propose that if we allowed these animals, cows and pigs especially, to live free range the mode of production would be morally permissible. The main arguments against the current mode of production come from 3 places; first it causes immense pain, stress and suffering to the animal, and second it deprives the animal of its natural environment and agency, third killing sentient beings in general is immoral. Free range meat is a perfect solution to both of these critics. Allowing cattle to live on grassland has shown to improve the cattle"s health, "Advocates of pasture-raised beef say the reasons to switch go beyond nutrition. The animal is raised in a more humane fashion that is also better for the environment. And 100-percent grass-fed animals typically aren't given hormones or antibiotics." [5] With less hormones and antibiotics being introduced the cow is allowed to grow naturally. Plus living on grassland allows the cow to roam free, doing whatever cows do in their free time. When it comes time for a cow to die there has been much improvement ensuring the animal does not undergo stress or pain [6] (I suggest reading this source as it is the ideal in ethical meat production). For the 3rd counter point I appeal to nature. First I will provide a definition for sentient via Google definitions: "able to perceive or feel things." Animals kill other animals to ensure their own survival. When a sentient bear kills a sentient salmon and we do not pass judgment. When sentient ants farm aphids we do not pass judgment. However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals. For example rape is common throughout the animal kingdom. When it happens in human society we reject the idea that it's simply a common occurrence and attempt (if incompetently) to punish the rapist for obvious reasons. There are obvious reasons we eat meat (see argument one). Just because we reject some aspects of nature does not mean we must reject all aspects of nature. Part of your counter will be to convince us that eating meat/animal bi-products is one aspect of nature we should reject. Symbiosis can be Mutually Beneficial to Humans and Domesticated Animals: This will be a short summary and conclusion paragraph explaining how ethical meat production (for example read source [6]) benefits both man and animal. To the benefit of humans: We are what we eat, raising our food in healthy ethical environments benefits us. If we allow our cows to grow in their own filth pumped full of artificial hormones and constantly stressed out then the meat produced is lower in quality and the damages are passed onto us. This is shown by the evidence that grass fed beef is healthier for us in general compared to the current factory like mass production model [2][5][6]. Furthermore raising our food ethically can be a spiritual process. As an example I show an opposite circumstance, it is common knowledge that one sign of a serial killer is torturing animals. If we move away from torturing animals during the process of food production we can move away from the darker aspects associated with killing animals. To the benefit of our Domesticated Animals: I know your initial thought may be "how can killing an animal be in its benefit?" Well in short it it's not, but not all symbiotic relationships are 50/50. However in an ethical scenario of meat production we provide our animals a safe, stress, and pain free environment away from natural predators. Given the option I'm sure a cow would prefer a stun bolt over being torn apart by wolves. In exchange for this protection we take sacrifices as needed. We allow the animal to live a natural life, and instead of them being picked off by predators we substitute this natural selection with human selection. Their deaths benefit humans instead of wolves or bears, which in the end is their purpose. Up until the end the cow's life would be its own. Citation: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com...... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... [4] http://www.peta.org...... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...... [6] http://modernfarmer.com......

5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00007-000

This debate is specifically to debate against the strict dietary values of veganism. I ask that a person who identifies as vegan take the Con position. Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and also a brief paragraph on position and beliefs (not hard evidence, just explain where you will be coming from). I agree that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is unhealthy with it being a high fat, high sugar and low exercise diet. However I believe the health problems associated with meat are not because meat is inherently unhealthy, but because Americans simply over consume it. Meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's diet in moderation. In regards to the morality of meat production the process of raising and killing animals can and should be reformed to ensure it's not done in a tortuous manner. In short meat is not inherently evil.

3dff2ca7-2019-04-18T19:29:11Z-00004-000

I believe that abortion should not be legal one bit I don't believe that murder is right at all, but if abortion is legal why don't they legalize killing people. God has a plan for everyone and when you have a abortion you are going against God......... You think you can prove me wrong try

77158806-2019-04-18T16:25:48Z-00004-000

Swimming is by definition a sport. Why anyone would think otherwise I have no idea. Swimming is one of the hardest sports out there. I'm interested what my opponent will have to say about it

b1852ba9-2019-04-18T18:28:00Z-00008-000

Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod

3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00004-000

I'm new to debate.org, so forgive me if I make a mistake in this process. I've made multiple attempts to argue this point in person and have come unsuccessful. I have yet to hear an argument supporting that sexuality is a choice, despite my efforts. The closest I've heard has been "sexual orientation may not be a choice, but homosexual actions certainly are". I'm not trying to debate this, I'm talking about strictly sexual orientation. Considering this is a website specifically for debating, I'm assuming I will get some responses and I'm excited for it. Onto my arguments: 1. To fellow heterosexuals: When did we choose to be straight? I know, this is an extremely cliche argument and I'm sure you've all heard it. But I certainly don't remember making a decision about it. I don't think I could choose to be homosexual if I tried. When thinking of sleeping with another guy, I feel nothing but discomfort. I guess it's like trying to explain why I don't like deviled eggs. I just don't, and I can't choose to like deviled eggs. 2. There's no reason to choose homosexuality You could make the argument that it's a rebellion thing, and I'll get to that later. Let's look at all the downsides society has caused to homosexuality. Bullying, discrimination, and persecution are just a few example of what many homosexuals have to endure everyday (at least where I live, in the bible belt). Consider the case of Carlos Vigil, a 17 year old homosexual high-schooler. He took his own life after the bullying became unbearable, all because of his sexual orientation. If it's a choice, he could have just switched back, right? Before it got really bad, he could have bailed out of homosexuality while he had the chance, right? If so, why didn't he take that chance? I would think just about every homosexual in this scenario would become heterosexual, yet they don't. Why? Because they can't. They are who they are. In my school, there are two homosexual men, both very religious. Hell, on their Instagram bio they both claim "God is everything". It goes without saying that they know they are sinning, and in their own religious book, it claims that their god "hates homosexuals". These people believe they will spend an eternity suffering for the way they live, yet they don't change it. If sexuality were as easy to change as many claim, why don't they? For these reasons, I do not believe homosexuality is a way to rebel (at least not in 99.9% of cases). I don't think anybody would rebel to the point where they spend an eternity suffering, or rebel to the point where they commit suicide. 3. Homosexual stereotypes Yes, I know nowadays the default notion of stereotypes is they're hurtful and false, but I think most would agree that stereotypes come from somewhere. Many, if not the majority of open homosexuals (to my personal observations) abide to the stereotype, which involves being feminine, a higher pitched voice, a lisp (I'm not sure why this is true, but it seems to be), dramatic, extreme hand motions, etc. Obviously not all homosexuals fit this stereotype, and I'm expecting to take heat for these statements, but we all know that's the stereotype. Growing up, we all knew who the gays were, far before they came out. When they finally did, nobody was surprised. Why? Because they acted gay for years, yet they didn't want people to know. It makes sense that they act gay even when others don't know that they're gay, because that's just the way they are. I grew up with a kid who was always feminine. Our parents were friends, so I would play at his house a lot. Even before kindergarten, he played with Barbies instead of soldiers, and glittery horses instead of dragons. The games he wanted to play were foreign to me. I remember specifically "Boy by the River". He played as the girl and made my brother play as his boyfriend while I was the boy by the river. All he would do is break up with my brother and become my girlfriend (We hated this game). I always knew he was different, and he was obviously way too young to make a choice of his sexuality, but he was obviously homosexual. Fast forward 10 years, after going about that time without seeing him, he goes into my dads office and asks him to donate to his dance crew. Come to find out...he was gay. Homosexuals don't begin showing these stereotypes to make a point, that's just the way they are. 4. It happens Short point... Over 1500 species of animals have been witnessed engaging in homosexual behaviors. The society of these animals aren't advanced to the point where they need to show off to their friends or they want to rebel to their parents. It shows that it's perfectly natural to be gay, it's just uncommon. I'm sure I'm missing something, but it'll come to me at some point throughout the debate. Again, correct me if I made a mistake. Thanks!

b1c7f006-2019-04-18T12:05:29Z-00006-000

Since my opponent has not provided a definition of abortion I'll just go with "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.". Generally I would agree with pro, that being that in most circumstances abortion should be illegal however I will argue that there slightly more circumstances where abortion should be legal that are not simply covered by threats to the mothers life. Instances where there is no chance of the fetus's survival There are a number of conditions where the fetus has no chance or an incredibly low chance of survival, in these cases it is immoral to criminalise abortion for a number of reasons. For one it will not increase the quality of life or particularly extend the life of the fetus due to it either already being dead or imminently about to be and therefore the majority of the arguments against abortion are rendered void. Furthermore it is incredibly traumatic to make a person carry a dead fetus to term as can be seen in this story from Texas [1]. In addition while there might not necessarily be a particularly high risk of death there are health risks in a pregnancy and health risks to carrying a dead or dying fetus that again while not necessarily lethal are harmful [2]. Very early abortion Within the first 3 days of a pregnancy there is the option to take the so called "morning after pill" which can be used up to 5 days after unprotected sex [3]. At this stage what could become a fetus is a morula of only around 16 cells [4]. While it is technically living there is a substantial difference between this and later pregnancies where there are basic nervous impulses and the beginnings of homeostasis allowing the use of the morning after pill and even encouraging it to at least a degree would decrease the rate of later abortion. This helps deal with the problem where in countries where abortion is banned there are just as many abortions as in countries where it is legal [5] by allowing some ability to terminate pregnancies in the very early stages. [1] https://www.reddit.com... [2] https://www.meb.uni-bonn.de... (this appears to have some formatting issues) [3] https://onlinedoctor.lloydspharmacy.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.independent.co.uk...

80500e82-2019-04-18T16:59:01Z-00002-000

Pros CasePoint A: Climate shift is realSub point 1: Scientific consensus"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U. S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. " Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by HumanitySub point 1: Scientific Consensus"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. '"(3)"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible. "(5)"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. "(2)"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. "(2)"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. "(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). "(2)"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. "(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. " (2)"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either. " (2)"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions. "(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources1. . http://www.sciencemag.org...2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...3. . http://www.nrdc.org...4. . http://www.mfpp.org...5. . http://www.edf.org...6. . http://climate.nasa.gov...7. . http://climate.nasa.gov...8. . http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...9. . http://www.usatoday.com...10. . http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...11. . http://climate.nasa.gov...

27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00001-000

Thank you for the response. This is the last round so I shall be making my refutations and restating my arguments and telling why I believe that the Opposition has won this debate. Refutations "He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed." This is because my opponent's counter-argument had no relation to the children of illegal immigrants. The argument he presented was simply about illegal immigrants in general, but not the children. I have presented arguments for why the 14th amendment should be repealed and I'm sure my opponent knows that. "I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...?" They don't need citizenship at that age. Illegal immigrants like to have children in the United States because they automatically become legal citizens that can help their parents become citizens quickly. That's a benefit that attracts illegal here to have children. If the law is repealed, then illegal immigrants will not have children here. And if those children want to become American citizens, then they can when the become young adults or even older. "CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate." I have constantly stated a point that my opponent seems to ignore and not bother with. Wouldn't an immigrant, who worked hard to wait in the lines and learn about American history, who feels honored to even have the opportunity to become a legal citizen, wouldn't he feel angered that a child of an illegal immigrant, a bad person, could automatically be born as a citizen? These illegal immigrants should not be rewarded with citizenship for their child. That makes little to no sense in any circumstance. As I mentioned in the 2nd round, a Rasmussen poll found that more of the United States is against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals than those who support. Clearly, the true, legal citizens of the US have their own concerns. "How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship (citizenship) evens means, what else would you have them do?" By repealing the birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens amendment, it deters illegal immigrants from having children here in the first place. That's one of the main reasons why illegals have children here. For the free citizenship. Now, about the child become a legal citizen. A child could not live by himself/herself, meaning there must be an illegal parent in the picture. The parent should then, as an illegal, get citizenship for herself and the child, or pack up and leave or suffer consequences, seeing as they are on our United States soil illegally. "CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment." The Alien and Seditions Act had nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants. The act was about the power and right of the President to be able to deport any resident alien that could be potentially dangerous to the US, the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, and that it is a crime to publish false writing against the government and its officials [1]. What similar argument is there? Jefferson argued stating that it violated the 10th Amendment, where power is reserved to the people [2], legal citizens, not illegals. How does this have any relevance in any way? My opponent refutes my argument that birthright citizenship is outdated because back then there was a time of less immigration. He continues to support his refutation with two percentages. One stating that in 1990, the foreign-born population of the US was 8.5%. From 1860 to 1940, it was above 13 percent. Now, percentages can always be deceiving. Just because in 1990 the foreign population was 8.5% doesn't mean that there was fewer immigrants. Population of the United States has risen in the past years. This percent could be and most likely is a larger number of people than the 13% my opponent claimed. I also find it peculiar why my opponent mentioned a 90 year and 70 year spread and compared it to 1 year, 20 years ago. In 2005, just the Hispanic race made up 14.4% of the US population or about 43 million people [3]. Back then, I'm not even sure there WERE that many people in the US. "Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else." How is it unfair to child, who gets free citizenship? His parents were the ones who illegally and secretly smuggled into the US and had a child! Again, it's unfair to the people who actually worked for their citizenship because they waited, learned, and passed a test. "I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys." They would return to their family and get true citizenship at an older age when they can care for themselves. "CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. " I've never known those words and thank you for adding that to my vocabulary. Anyway, isn't this a democratic republic? The people have spoken and they want these birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ended. What happened to the 10th amendment that Jefferson defended? Don't the people have power? "But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States." If everyone is subject to the laws of the United States, as you say, then why do we have illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, robbers, troublemakers, and scams? "Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants." Well, that's what we're currently arguing and the topic has been brought up again, so I don't see the argument here. Arguments My opponent has constantly repeated that I have no actual reason to repeal the 14th amendment. I will try to make these points as clear as possible. 1. Birthright citizenship is unfair to the current legal citizens who worked hard for their citizenship. 2. We should not be rewarding the illegals with citizenship for their child. 3. Citizenship is something that should be earned. 4. It encourages illegal parents to have a child in the US. 5. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a time of less illegal immigration. For these arguments, CON should win this debate. I congratulate my opponent on good arguments and excellent vocabulary and near perfect spelling. Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.infoplease.com...

27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00003-000

Refutations 1. I am slightly confused as to what my opponent is truly arguing. Instead of wondering about what my family roots are, or citing a movie, I would appreciate if you could make the argument more clear. However, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are arguing that America is a land of freedom, free of prosecution, and free of religious intolerance. If so, I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens, but illegal immigrants. And their children certainly do not either. If you claim that America is so free, then why does the Constitution, the very document that defines America, contain the three-fifths slave law and the prohibition of outlawing the Atlantic slave trade [1]? I do not understand how my opponent refuted my argument and thus, it still stands. 2. So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do. It's not that big of a deal. "According to the Pew Research Center, 8% of all newborns, 5.4% of the total workforce, and 4% of the total US population are attributed to illegal immigrants. " This debate has little to do with actual illegal immigrants, but more about the children they produce and their citizenship. I feel that most of my opponent's arguments are focused on illegal immigration in it's entirety. I personally believe that illegal immigrants are bad and have a negative effect, but that is useless in this specific debate. 3. No, it is not just about Hispanic immigration, but the Hispanics make up the largest percentage (more than half) of illegal immigrations to the US [2]. My opponent asks what the problem with a disproportionate amount of births is. Here is my response. Because illegal immigrants have the power to procreate in the United States and to bring new citizens into the union, they exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage. "Why not simply get rid of the entitlement programs, but keep the people who have just come here to provide their family the best opportunity possible? Immigrants to the US in the past had to be self-reliant, learned to be self-reliant, and were some of the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge. Plus, these are the children of illegal immigrants who have disrespected US' laws and immigrated here illegally, only to have a legal child who can put in a word for them when they are persecuted due to illegality. In the second sentence, the key word my opponent mentioned is "immigrant. " He never mentioned illegal immigrants and I would like him to cite any illegal aliens that became "the most enterprising individuals on the face of the earth. " "The welfare state, with the promise of instant subsistence, is the real enemy, not immigration itself. " I do not see why the welfare state should be eliminated. Sure, illegal immigrants will no longer exploit or take advantage of the public benefits, but the benefits are taken away from the legal citizens and public who need programs in public health and public housing and unemployment compensation. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship. "Secondly, the United States is very selective with whom they'll turn a bind (blind) eye too, versus who they will allow to come in. " Well, this probably means we simply need to be more fair and less selective. But, this argument is, like the previous one, focusing on illegal immigration which is irrelevant to the topic, birthright citizenship. Arguments 1. The writers of the 14th amendment, if they had known of our situation, would not want birthright citizenship for illegals. If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. 2. Birthright citizenship is outdated and came from a period of less immigration. The guarantee of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment came in a time when our borders were wide open and international travel was more difficult. When a family came here they usually intended to settle and stay, not have a child to lay a foothold down and put in a word for them. 3. Once again, birthright citizenship is unfair to true legal citizens. What about those who waited in lines and worked hard and studied hard to learn U. S. history and pass the test to become a real citizen? Birthright citizenship is simply a slap in the face to them. The concept of a pair of illegals having a child in the US and having him or her automatically be born as a citizen is absurd and unfair. 4. The illegal behavior of parents should not be awarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior. 5. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal families to have children in the United States. I have already expanded on this in the previous round. 6. A majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Rasmussen took a poll in June of 2010, asking people if they thought children of illegal immigrants should have citizenship. Fifty-eight percent said no and only 33 percent said yes [3]. My opponent has frequently spoken about illegal immigration and not the main subject of birthright citizenship. I would like him to focus more on the matter at hand and the topic I posted, instead of illegal immigration. If you would like to debate illegal immigration, PARADIGM_L0ST, I would be very happy to do so in the future, but not now. I look forward to the next round. Sources: 1. . http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.nationalreview.com...

e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00001-000

some kids around my neighborhood one day i was out side and this kid and brother were talk about gta and they were going that they were going to beat up this with a pocket knife and and they jump the kid and i had to help the kid how was getting beat up i look at him and he had a stab wound

e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00004-000

well no B/c some kids know how to control them self like no id would start killing people b/c of one game and like for example Gta V no kid would start robbing cars and they could have family time b/c for example I play with y cousin black ops 2 and we still have time together

e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00005-000

i think playing violent video games can cause brain damage and they do nat spend time there family.they also can start fight in school

a51fda9-2019-04-18T15:39:37Z-00004-000

Why do we go to school. "To make ourselves success full in the dog eat dog world." Education is the key. But why send us to school. Education does not mean to go to school. Hard work and education are siblings but school is a distant cousin. (Suli Breaks) Mark Twain once said "I never let my schooling interfere with my education." To understand this you need to dig deeper. Education is the key but why do we need school to get an education. Education has been confused with fact gathering. "There is more than one way in this world to become an educated man" (Suli Breaks) Any more becoming educated means becoming the encyclopedia of dry facts to take a test about something that you will probably never use later on. "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it"s stupid" " Albert Einstein. The success of students is measured by their ability to repeat what they have been told on to a piece of paper, but is education supposed to be about filling ones head with facts and terms than can be looked up on Google at any given time? (Why I hate School but Love Education) School can actually get in the way. Thinking outside the box in school is like stepping outside of the bunker in the middle of the war. You are wanting to get yourself killed. They encourage it but why do they shoot down your ideas after you show them it. They do not want you to change the education system if you can call it that. They want everyone to leave school the exact same. It"s a factory move kids in and out make them just good enough to make it to the next level and only that level. They put kids on a behavior plan so that the other students don"t get the same ideas and rebel against the school. Did you know every nine seconds a student drops out of school. Why? Most find it irrelevant and uninteresting. What if education was tailored to every student instead of the commonly used one size fits all. And if we were seen as teenagers instead of little numbers on big spreadsheets

c98c7791-2019-04-18T15:57:27Z-00002-000

Hockey is no doubt the better sport. 1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals. 2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like "ball is life" for basketball. 3. Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like "brick city" or "biscuits"

7fafa35a-2019-04-18T11:20:51Z-00001-000

Is chatrooms can destroy our social life and how if we use just an hour a day i think there is no issue, What you say guys

66c39af3-2019-04-18T16:23:27Z-00003-000

I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent. "we can't change our attraction through our will"Says who? Who told you that, Con? You keep making these sweeping claims without offering a scintilla of scientific evidence. Your supposed "logical arguments are entertaining, but why can't you grasp they're not enough? Why cant you grasp that if there was any validity to them you'd be able to present scientific cites? Do you even know what a scientific cite is, Con? "Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up."I never said, implied, or suggested gays can choose who they are attracted to. Are you resorting to outright lying now? I said there is no scientitic evidence to support your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted -- that the claim is LGBT junk science. In otherwords, you can't support your claim, Con, so what you do now is engage in is chicanery. There is no scientific evidence supporting your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted to. Please stop making the claim or present evidence to support it. It's really that simple. Is Anal Sex is DangerousHonestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks.Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1).500,000 have died from anal sex, gay males make up 75% of all new HIV cases, all this and you would have us believe male-to-male anal sex is no more dangerous than straight sex? Are you serious? And why do you believe in the LGBT notion of "safe-sex?" If male-to-male anal sex can be made safe, why are gay males still dropping like flies?Honestly, you need to stop repeating your LGBT talking points and check out the scientific literiture. Nothing you claim is orginal; all of it is warmed-over LGBT talking points. And then you so blantantly ignore the scientific evidence I present. Earlier I linked you to a paper by Dr. John Diggs. The paper was a in-depth study of "The Hazards of Gay Sex." One of the points made is that with frequent anal sex the anal/rectum subsystem is compromised. It becomes dysfunctional, the seal is eroded and these men must start wearing diapers.Diggs goes on to explain that the anus was not designed to withstand the trauma produced by anal sex pounding. This is yet another dirty little secret the LGBT community don't want the public to know -- anal sex causes anal/rectal dysfunction.Gay Marriages WorkI have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample.No, gay marriages don't work. And that's because gay males are the most promiscuous creatures on the planet and find it intolerable. Gay culture is based on promiscurity, not traditional marriage ideals. Gay bars, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenich Village Docks, the gay porn industry, gay escort services, Even "The Advocate", the national gay news paper, are all a celebration of gay sex. You don't know this, Con, because you've never heard of these places. Likewise, you've never read Guy Rotolo or Randy Shiltz. You're here parroting LGBT talking points you've never researched.Young, fast track gays want nothing to do with same-sex marriage. This explains why after ten years of it in Massachusetts 95% of gay males remain unmarried. It's the older gays who want it -- the gays nobody wants. What younger gays want is access to boys -- that's why they're for same-sex marriage: they know once it becomes law it gets them into the schools where they can recruit.

66c39af3-2019-04-18T16:23:27Z-00007-000

QUOTE :================================================== "...Not quite. The message he promoted is that it is ok to be gay." ================================================== Buy it's NOT ok to be gay, and this is the heart of the matter. The 20 year-old male who "comes-out" dramatically increases chances of getting HIV. The CDC tells us 75% of all new HIV cases are gay males. How can you possibly say "it's ok to be gay" with stats like that staring you in the face? ================================================== QUOTE: "...We know that sexual attraction is emotional and is a biological thing that develops during puberty. You don't choose who you are attracted to, you are. In fact the only way to remove your attraction is chemical castration showing that attraction is a physical non-voluntary process. I can't just decide I am not attracted to women, I just am. Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently." ================================================================ Your "born this way" theory was discredited ages ago. The American Psychological Association doesn't support it and never has. And your "Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently" is yet more LGBT junk science not supported by a scintilla of evidence. I've read the scientific literature. You clearly haven't. ===================================================================== QUOTE: "...You will be less happy married to a person you are not attracted to. If gays are attracted to each other, their marriages will be better if they marry each other instead of people they are not attracted to. A healthy sex life is vital to a healthy marriage." =================================================================== Gays are actually more miserable married than unmarried. Most gays want nothing to do with same-sex. In Massachusetts 10 years after same sex marriage less than 5% of gay males are married. Why do you think that is? What do these gay males know you don't?

8df51034-2019-04-18T14:36:19Z-00005-000

Wind turbines are a useful efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy.Did you know that in 70 wind farms we can power 1.3 million homes with increased capacity these giant wind eaters can be our future to power Australia with solar power. Wait till coal gets wind of this

81e83a03-2019-04-18T12:26:05Z-00002-000

Abortion is absolutely nonsense. It should not be legal under any circumstance and I look forward for a debate.

a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00001-000

However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows: 1 – Public Opinion My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling – that's all scripted and choreographed – it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way). 2 – Violence It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. . http://www.imdb.com... Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them. 3 – Red Cards I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners – any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning. 4 – Grudges My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him: . http://www.freewebs.com... 5 – Penalties are thrilling. I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.

a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00002-000

Contention 1: Public opinion I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match. Contention 2: Violence My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible. Contention 3: Red Cards. My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument. - I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive. Contention 4: Grudges My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players. "Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead." - False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.

fb67998b-2019-04-18T18:32:27Z-00000-000

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health is pretty irrelevant, since it involved a woman who was in a PSV (persistent vegetative state.) [1] "Euthanasia" is the practice of ending a life for his or her benefit (i.e., to relieve pain and suffering.) [2] She was in an unconscious state, so one really cannot determine if she was in pain or suffering. Hence, one cannot say that removing her from life support was an act of euthanasia. And, indeed, it is true that based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, people have the right to refuse medical care. This is not assisted suicide but rather an act of self-deprivation (which, we must also remember, does not necessarily guarantee death) [3]; hence, euthanasia is a completely different matter. Two physicians agreeing is not enough of a justification. Two physicians can look at the same flawed blood test and come up with the same conclusion... That doesn't mean that the conclusion becomes right. And let us remember the patient saying that he or she wants to die does not make the diagnosis any more true or the chances of recovery any fewer. The aforementioned five-year-old boy who contracted a deadly strain of E. coli survived. He suffered a lot, but he lived through it, despite the doubtful views of the doctors. Although they may have had mixed feelings before, the parents, if asked now, would most certainly not wish the boy was killed during his illness. Through the painful obstacles he endured, there was a small glimmer of hope. Ultimately, he received the gift of life. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.nrlc.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

eced7297-2019-04-18T15:15:06Z-00003-000

I think they should be able to because when they have a baby they can not care for it if they are not married.

c98fe9c6-2019-04-18T19:32:48Z-00002-000

Thanks for continuing this debate. I must apologise...I have only minutes until the deadline expires. I am afraid, therefore, I will not have time to post an argument that his contribution deserves. Suffice to say that, my opponent made a number of valid objections to the current technology, which I accept. Nonetheless, I would reiterate that 30 years should be sufficient time to develop alternative fuel-powered cars - even if it is simply more efficient versions of hybrid petrol (gasoline) / electric vehicles with batteries that store energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat during braking. Thank you.

a3b6a2e9-2019-04-18T18:33:42Z-00002-000

sorry for the short argument last time my internet kept fritzing. "Taking your graphs, they do appear to show that teenage unemployment rises with increases in the minimum wage but I see two problems with this. Firstly that you seen to have forgotten that the financial world was brought to it's knees around the time where both the minimum wage and unemployment figures went up." True, but 06 was when things began to fallout. Notice the minimum wage still flat lined in that period and the unemployment was fairly the same. But when it rose it shot up. Also is says it rose mid 07, so before then it was flat line. It goes up ONLY when the minimum wage increases. Unemployment rate in December 2006 (last month of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress): 4.4%. Unemployment in October 2009 (after 34 months of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, and three minimum wage increases in those 33 months): 10.2%. [1] this isn't a democrat political bashing, but that's when the min wage rose. "he part of the graph that I do find interesting however is the information prior to January 2007 where the minimum wage was held constant (but there was still a minimum wage in place) and the unemployment figures actually decreased." when it was still slat line it was going up above the line and below it. 03-06 it was above, then it fel mid 06 and 07. then rose slightly above the line just barely before the increase. So when it flat lined it fluctuated from about 4-6% according to the source. And after the wage it hit about 10% and kept rising. So it had a consistent up and down. but still fairly similar. We see this on all economic graphs, it goes up down (slightly) then rises when the suspected cause moves. "Also the first source shows that if you raise it business lay of teenagers and minorities first." I'm having trouble following what you mean." I mean that the least skilled get laid off first. "Going back to the graph, there are a few reasons that can explain this decrease in unemployment which shows how important the minimum wage is. The first one is stigma. teenagers are seen in society as having less experience therefore being less able to work (I am discussing from a personal view)." That is my point, the least skilled get layed off first and are less likely to get hired. Teenagers and uneducated minorities get hurt first. And will be affected as they do not get hired. Thank you for that post. "A minimum wage does not guarantee a job or a career but it levels the playing field by ensuring that minorities are treated equally. " 1. how does it level it because I have proved that it hurts them? 2. Sure it sounds great but they will be less likely to get a job with a minimum wage. So get paid 0 because the minimum wage makes it impossible to get a job or get paid 4$ an hour cause they can get a job because the minimum wage was lowered or destroyed. So under my proposal they are more likely to get hired, and have their payment risen from 0 (unemployed) to example 4$. 400% increase. "To recap, because the minimum wage helps combat stigma in society and gives everyone a level playing field in their work then it helps teens and minorities more than it hinders them." How does it combat stigma? If your unemployed for a while sometimes you gve up. It has happened recently in america, 200,000 people have given up. So it increases stigma. It doesn't even it out because they don't get hired, it does the opposite. I will explain shortly. C1: Increases teenage unemployment. I have proven this, but i will explain how it makes the playing feild more uneven. Most labor economists will tell you that minimum wage increases lead to decreased employment among workers with the least skills. A survey of more than 100 studies on the subject by Drs. David Neumark and William Wascher confirms this fact: A sizable majority, including 85% of the studies the authors identify as providing the best evidence, show disemployment effects following a mandated wage increase. Our research adds to this literature while uncovering additional information. Using Current Population Survey data from the last two decades, we focused on males between the age of 16 and 24 without a high school degree — a vulnerable group more likely to be displaced as a consequence of rising labor costs. With a dataset of more than 600,000 observations, we were able to examine in-depth the employment histories of white, black and Hispanic males. We discovered that not every race and ethnicity was affected equally by minimum wage increases at the state and federal level: Each 10% increase in the minimum wage was accompanied by a decrease in employment of 1.2% for Hispanic males, 2.5% for white males and 6.5% for black males. [2] So since they are unemployable they cannot be even due to the faact that they will hav harder times looking for a job. SO once again, it unemployment or 4$ n hour better? Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [3] So it raises unemployment, especially for teens. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. [3] So the economy has is a factor, but the minimum wage is too. SO yeah I have basicallyproved this with facts...SO now ot the minority. C2: raises minority unemployment for 3 reasons: 1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most [4] 2. The minimum wage harms poor areas over rich areas [4] 3. The minimum wage makes discrimination less costly, therefore easier to discriminate [4] 2. is obiously right so lets focus on 1 and 3. 1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most What politicians won’t tell you but what ALL economists know is that the people who are most likely to lose their job due to an increase in the minimum wage are the least educated, the ones with the least skills, and the ones that are likely to keep their jobs are the more educated, the ones with the most skills. [4] this isn't meant to be rascist but on average minorities have the disavantages above. So being that minorities are the ones that tend to be less educated either because of a poor public school system, or the lack of english speaking parents at home, it is primarily poor minorities that feel the brunt of the minimum wage - while middle class white students reap most of the rewards. [4] 3. Discrimnation you claim it helps them, false I will prove it discriminates. Lets say that I was a racist and I wanted to open up a restaurant but I hated Mexicans so much that I refused to hire any in my shop. [4] So okay, I am a stubborn racist and decide to do it anyway - problem is, to get the same quality of workers I have to now pay them more per hour, say $8, or $10/hour. That is the beauty of the market system, I now have to pay for my racism. [4] Now, factor in the minimum wage and what happens? Well you have just made it easier for me to be racist. [4] you have reduced and spread out the costs I previously had to incur to follow my racist beliefs [4] go to my 4 source for more info. sources: http://www.americanthinker.com... [1] http://www.freerepublic.com... [2] http://online.wsj.com... [3] http://hispanicpundit.com... [4]

1f98e1f8-2019-04-18T18:59:42Z-00000-000

Now your first argument states that video games change a person, well that is not true the percentage of violence is the same in both game playing and non-game playing individuals. What does 13 hours of gaming a week have to do with anything it is simply 111.428571 minutes a day which amounts to 1.85714285 hours a day who cares. Your 65% chance that it is a violent video game is irrelevant beacuse of what I said about the percentages of violence being the same, and if violence is their isn't the simple fact that we show violence on T. V. , in history textbooks, and insistently in the News just as bad, I am quite certain that you do not see it that way so your facts still remain pointless. Fights in school tend to have no basis upon the games they play it has mostly to do with how they are being raised, and other situations but video games do not play any true part within the origins of the bully behavior. Finally what does the movie Saw have to do with anything (or the game they made from it) it does not show you how to build those contraptions of death, it does not show you how to do anything of that nature and the fact still remains it does not show your child how to commit those heinous actions and it is more likely to give people nightmares than to make hem go around in a pigs mask and put them in a room with a tape cassette and tell them "You have one hour to cut off your leg if you want to live". . http://www.associatedcontent.com... . http://www.switched.com... . http://arstechnica.com... . http://www.thebluebanner.net... . http://www.geeknewscentral.com... . http://southeastpsych.blogspot.com... . http://childbehaviourtips.com... . http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com... . http://www.xbox360achievements.org... . http://www.salon.com... For your second argument I would like to inform you that I already know not all parents are caring, but my points from the previous paragraph still remain that the amount of violence remains the same for both parties. The parents also can go right up to the register and ask for about what the ratings mean, read the back label of the game that will elaborate the meaning of the rating as well as give a description of the game contents, and they can simply go to the ESRB website for rating information. Only a minority of parents are not actively involved in their children's lives. The point remains that parents still retain the ultimate control over the games they play. . http://www.unmarried.org... . http://atomsfamily.net... . http://www.mhea.com... . http://www.esrb.org... . http://www.freedomfromfear.org... . http://www.aboutourkids.org... Your 3rd argument coincided with what I had said that you do not need to pay sports to get physically fit. I never said they had to go to gyms at school they can go to any gym available, and I also said that they did not need a gym they can simply jog around. Also remember the fact that many ids have parents which will not let their kids go outside and play sports, and that some kids have so much work to do that they cannot take time out of their schedules to play sports. What is this I hear about you saying they are too young to be interested in their careers it is never too early for one to be interested in their career which will effect how they will live for the rest of your life. Remember that the majority of people who spends time playing video games do not spend all of their time eating, and if one wants to be physically fit they will attempt to do so it makes no sense to force them and if the parents want them to be fit then they will make them exercise. Also now more than ever I would like to point out a series of reasons children no longer go outside as much: they can live in a bad neighborhood in which it is safer to stay inside than outside, too much work at school, horrible weather conditions, too many extracurricular activities, parents are too strict, they have many household chores that need completion, etc . . . etc . . . . http://www.quintcareers.com... . http://career-advice.monster.com... . http://www.nsls.info... . http://www.aicpa.org... . http://focusonyourfuture.org... . http://www.collegenet.com... . http://sweet_stuffva.tripod.com... . http://www.cmt.com... . http://www.parenting.com... . http://www.ehow.com... . http://today.msnbc.msn.com... . http://www.experienceproject.com... . http://www.whitehutchinson.com... . http://boingboing.net... . http://articles.latimes.com... . http://www.nwf.org... For your IV argument I want to know a 17% increase since when, you make no elaboration upon the argument hence I say that it bears no weight. Another thing is that video games do not show you how to jack a car the simply show people doing it but never in enough detail to teach you to hijack the car, if a kid truly wanted to learn to jack a car all they have to do is read a basic car design book or look it up on the internet as well as take a basic automotive course at school so don't even bother blaming the game in this regard. Research shows that people who pay video games are no more aggressive than those that don't so that argument also remains futile. You also show no direct link to that child who stole a car and the presence of video games so how does it bear any weight in the regards of your argument, the quick answer is that it doesn't. Last I need to point out that simply beacuse violence in schools are on the rise that does not mean that video games are the culprit there is more of a link between parent,monetary, and social situations and crime in schools than video games in this subject. So in the end your arguments are simply subjective generalization and scapegoating on video games. . http://www.bitmob.com... . http://www.pbs.org... . http://boards.ign.com... . http://www.megaessays.com... . http://www2.uwstout.edu... . http://www.vancouversun.com...= I would like to point out one more thing , I never said that "Crime rate since video games have ben out" nor have I ever implied that all I had stated is that violence has been around since the dawn of civilization and that video games have nothing to do with it.

4b7e0d28-2019-04-18T19:28:51Z-00005-000

i guess we can continue and talk about how it is a sport...lol

a79965ba-2019-04-18T16:59:18Z-00002-000

I agree with you that many people misuse social media and that if people used them correctly then there would be very little danger. My point is that people don't use the sites correctly so it makes them very dangerous places for people who don't use them correctly. If people used them correctly then people would feel more comfortable about them and parents would feel better about their children having accounts on the websites.

a79965ba-2019-04-18T16:59:18Z-00007-000

It is a good way to keep in touch with people, but people get used to talking to people online so when they have to talk face-to-face it is difficult. People also say things to others that they wouldn't say to their face and that is when problems with bullying happens.

3b6914d5-2019-04-18T16:05:24Z-00004-000

Pro : It should be. Con : It should be not.

4531b787-2019-04-18T18:37:54Z-00005-000

ok I made this debate to broad. But I will keep it as it is. Well to make my stance more clear, I belive every tax rate needs a constitutional ammendment to pass. This is so when the goverment passes lets say a 9% or a 6% tax then they cant keep raising it every time they blink. Because you 100% is imopssible anyway, and our goverment isnt that dumb to make a 100% tax at this time. I also don't see how it is immoral. Should my parents who make x amount oof money get taxed 40% and not the people a few miles away? A small tax won't be that much. Further more they use our schools, our roads, our police system, and they don't pay for it. And it wouldn't make people more poor because if the buissnses are taxed less they will be more likely to hire. EX. lets say after investments I have 1,000,000$. I own a company. Then the goverment comes and takes 50%. Or after the flat tax with an ammendment is passed I only lose 10%. Woould I be inclined to hire more with losing 50% or 10%. I would build a new factory and hire with the 10% law! Well, It is not economically sound. Obviously they have their flaws. My libatarian dad has told me some of them. But as he said "a flat tax is a lot better then the tax system we have now. It would temporarily create jobs. And if the goverment never raises the rate then it will forever be good." So even a skeptic of a flat tax thinks it will help the economy, as long as it stays the same. Also it is still economically sound because If those people with no taxes get hired then they get taxed, and can get promoted. Thats what capitilism is about. Capitilism is about freedom, work hard you get earnings, and pay for what you get. I added the last part but people need to oaay their fair share as I stated above. I still don't understand how the goverment owns our income. Is it because they set it to wherever they want? Well they do that now don't they? Just saying. A system without an income tax is terrible. Weve seen this in europe. They pass a sales tax and keep raising it. You can't really regulate raising and lowering the sales tax because the federal goverment keeps a 10% tax on goods and you state tax just keeps raising it unless the feds tell them to stop. so its 10% federal tax, 30% state tax. Wow that sounds good... not. "Not if the tax rate is 90%." once again, even though our goverment can be dumb at times, they wouldn't pass a 90% income tax. Maybe a 9% or 6%. And they can't raise it if we use my idea, ammendment. http://www.heritage.org... read this it is interesting. http://townhall.com... http://www.epinions.com... http://www.financialsamurai.com...

a44baae-2019-04-18T17:58:49Z-00002-000

That is a very nice arguement but these taxes will not benefit us citizens. (To shorten this because im lazy im going to list facts that will generally refute your case. If theres a specific arguement or impact i will tell you) "The confluence of fiscal policy changes scheduled to occur at the end of 2012 " sometimes referred to as the "fiscal cliff" " poses serious challenges for policy makers. One area of disagreement is the increase in tax rates for high-income taxpayers resulting in part due to the sunset of elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. President Obama has called for the reinstatement of the higher top tax rates in his budget submission to the Congress, while key Republican members of Congress have called for their extension. The increase in the Medicare tax and its expansion to unearned income for high-income earners under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) further contributes to the increase in top tax rates. The concern over the top individual tax rates has been a focus, in part, because of the prominent role played by flow-through businesses " S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships " in the US economy and the large fraction of flow-through income that is subject to the top two individual income tax rates. These businesses employ 54% of the private sector work force and pay 44% of federal business income taxes.1 The number of workers employed by large flow-through businesses is also significant: more than 20 million workers are employed by flow-through businesses with more than 100 employees. This report uses the EY General Equilibrium Model of the US Economy to examine the impact of the increase in the top tax rates in the long-run. While a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examined the near-term effects of all of the federal government fiscal policies under scrutiny at the end of 2012 and found them to be of sufficient size to push the economy into recession at the beginning of 2013, this report focuses on the long-run effects of the increase in the top tax rates. This report examines four sets of provisions that will increase the top tax rates:  The increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%.  The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the "Pease" provision).  The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6% and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20%.  The increase in the 2.9% Medicare tax to 3.8% for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains. With the combination of these tax changes at the beginning of 2013 the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% in 2012 to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7% and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%. These higher tax rates result in a significant increase in the average marginal tax rates (AMTR) on business, wage, and investment income, as well as the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on new business investment. This report finds that the AMTR increases significantly for wages (5.0%), flow-through business income (6.4%), interest (16.5%), dividends (157.1%) and capital gains (39.3%). The METR on new business investment increases by 15.8% for the corporate sector and 15.6% for flow-through businesses. This report finds that these higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. Specifically, this report finds that the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending. Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013 ii Through lower after-tax rewards to work, the higher tax rates on wages reduce work effort and labor force participation. The higher tax rates on capital gains and dividend increase the cost of equity capital, which discourages savings and reduces investment. Capital investment falls, which reduces labor productivity and means lower output and living standards in the long-run.  Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3%, or $200 billion, in today‟s economy.  Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5% or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today‟s economy.++  Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4% and 2.4%, respectively.  Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8%, reflecting a decline in workers‟ living standards relative to what would have occurred otherwise." http://waysandmeans.house.gov... Now i would like you focus on the 3 to last point that has + after it. This tax increase on the rich buisnesses and the average american will result in 710,000 jobs. Now this is better then my opponents because this facts that my opponent has given is from a organization, yes this organization is out there to help people with no profit but mine is a government website. Also the reason why we are not letting our nation go over this fiscal cliff is to avoid these tax increases and its affects which i show through my one fact.

4487af89-2019-04-18T17:22:01Z-00005-000

I being pro will argue for this. Let us define this (1)Assisted suicide is "Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician." Round 1: is accepting the debate. Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points

f35758f7-2019-04-18T12:59:35Z-00000-000

I accept. In this debate, I will show that CCW laws cause more harm then good. Rebuttals first. "When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you." Do you have any evidence that concealed carry weapons will reduce attacks on stranded drivers? Is this even a problem to begin with? " If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff." - I don't get this point. You explained a possible counter argument, but failed to rebut it. Extend. "You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go." - As I will point out later, CC will actually make these situations worse. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? "That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places." -This is a problem. The resolution is about CCW laws, but now you make a point about harassment. Please extend. Now onto my arguments. C1: Increased Crime. - A common claim by gun rights activists is that guns will decrease crime, as citizens can stop criminals. This is false. A study done in 2012 by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that states that had "shall carry" laws had a 2% increase in murders and a 9% increase in violent crime [1]. A 1995 study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminalogy found that states that passed "shall issue" laws had a 4.5 person per 100,000 increase in the gun homicide rate [2]. So allowing CC is increasing the crime risk. C2: Increased risk. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault then people who don't carry guns [3]. This is more of a rebuttal of the gun rights activists' claims that guns will keep you safe. C3: Restrictions don't stop crime. You state that we should place restrictions on concealed carrying. However, these laws do not work. From 2007-2014, 636 people were murdered by people legally licensed to carry firearms [4]. Even worse, the Violence Policy Center states that CC handlers were arrested for gun offences 81% more in Texas [5]. Plus, just in 2007 Florida, 1400 felons, 128 active domestic violence perpetrators, and 216 people with active warrants held CCPs [6]. So how can you say that restrictions will keep criminals away? C4: Public opinion. You may think guns will make people feel safe. This is false. First, after Illinois passed a law allowing CC, a poll found that over 52% of the population felt less safe [7]. Plus, 79% of college students would not feel safe if people had firearms on campus [8]. Finally, 57% of the US population felt less safe after learning people could conceal guns in public [9]. C5: Criminal reaction. When it is easier for people to carry firearms, it is more likely for criminals to carry guns. 75% of convicted felons carried guns because they fear their victims could be carrying guns [10]. What does this mean? Victims who are not carrying could be at risk of being shot because of others. To conclude, I have shown that CC laws should not exist, due to my 5 contentions. I have proved the CC makes people feel less safe, cause more crime, and restrictions don't keep criminals from carrying guns. I await my opponents response. Sources: [1] http://www.nber.org... [2] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] http://www.vpc.org... [5] http://concealedguns.procon.org... [6] http://www.gainesville.com... [7] http://news.siu.edu... [8]https://www.researchgate.net... [9] http://smartgunlaws.org... [10] https://www.ncjrs.gov...

803fdd31-2019-04-18T15:29:48Z-00005-000

Many think that abortion should be illegal in the United States. As of right now it is legal in the country, but certain states have regulated laws that put limits on the times and periods that women can get an abortion. Only 39 states require an abortion be done by a licensed physician (Georgia being one of them). 42 states prohibit abortions after a certain amount of time of the pregnancy has passed. 17 states require that in order for a woman to get an abortion, she first has to go through counseling. These laws and regulations are not full-proof, but they do help to make it as moral and ethical as possible. Women should be allowed to get an abortion if they feel the need, but not after a certain amount of time has passed in the pregnancy. A woman's body is her own and she should be able to make the choice she wants to make with it. http://www.guttmacher.org...

c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00001-000

Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.

d40ee5aa-2019-04-18T18:37:32Z-00003-000

Just as an FYI, all my sources will be posted in the comments section. Constitutionality Just because something was created by Congress for a specific purpose does not make it constitutional. “Congress has the right to coin money and regulate its value, the FED was created by Congress to serve just that purpose for Congress.” It has been made very clear by the Supreme Court that the Fed is too private of an entity to be considered a federal agency. Lewis v. United States (1982) ruled that the Federal Reserve and its subdivisions are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not enough "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency. This lays to rest my opponent’s contention that the Fed serves any kind of purpose for Congress. If Congress had a significant role in regulating the Fed, then there would be no constitutional question to its existence. But if the Fed is so independent that it cannot be considered a federal agency, then it is indeed possessing a power constitutionally granted to Congress, thus making the Fed unconstitutional. Claims of the Fed’s evilness “Imagine the bank closures of the great Depression happening once every ten years and that was what it was like prior to the Fed's creation.” This is false. The highest amount of bank failures in a pre-Fed economic panic was 598, during the panic of 1893. And this was an extreme, 5 times the amount of the panic with the second most bank failures pre-Fed era. The Great Depression, by contrast, saw nearly 5,000 banks fail, all while the Fed did indeed exist. [1] Therefore, the contention that we would have a Great Depression every ten years without the Fed is unjustified. Also, to briefly address a point I will get to later, it is interesting that after the creation of an institution which was supposed to stabilize the economy, America ended up with its worst ever financial crisis in 1929, and is currently undergoing a prolonged recession in which the US received its first ever credit rating downgrade. And what is the oh-so-benevolent Fed’s role in all this? As can be proven, they exacerbated the Great Depression and are not helping the US economy towards recovery today. “The Fed was created so that its actions would be independent of Congressional intervention so that in times of crisis (like in 2008) the fed could do what it felt was necessary…” Is it necessary to print endless money and give out $16 trillion in “financial assistance” to US and foreign banks? And why should these private banks have control of our nation’s money without Congressional oversight? When you consider that many of the Fed’s governors, along with the Fed itself, have intimate ties to these big banks, this idea that it was necessary to put out this much money becomes a falsehood. Consider this: The CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. During the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans. In all of these cases, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to make their actions legal. To me, this is not necessary action, but instead dishonest and selfish action that clearly was meant to support the big bankers who have significant governance in the system. This is definitely a financial system that has not acted in our best interest, as it magically created $16 trillion out of thin air for the banks all while numerous businesses shut down and people went unemployed. This created money also contributed to a growing national debt and further inflated the money supply. To me, this corrupt system keeping bankers well afloat is something we can do without. [2] “The Fed must work within the framework of the economic and financial policy authorized to Congress.” The Fed is what creates the monetary policy, i.e. interest rates and amount of money in circulation. [3]This isn’t Congress’s job at all. “The Fed does not create a boom-bust cycle of economics, it was in fact authorized to prevent just that…” It was never placed to “prevent” the boom-bust cycle, as that is a natural part of a free-market. With the Fed in place, they manipulate the boom-bust cycle instead of letting it play out by itself. Consider the first graph on this site: . As can be seen, every time the Fed has increased interest rates, an economic depression has ensued. They originally set low interest rate, encouraging start-up businesses to take out loans to get capital. When they hike up the interest rates, this damages the vulnerable start-up businesses, who don’t have the necessary money to pay back the now high interest rate. Thus, they shut down and lay off their workers. Meanwhile, big corporations are relatively unaffected by the hike. Indeed, the Fed’s control of the interest rates has irrefutably been a major factor in causing an artificial boom-bust cycle. [4] “The Fed did not cause the great depression, that was caused because mass production produced an over-abundunce of goods…” My opponent has accepted the simplified version taught in history class, something that Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz have disproven. Their research has shown that if the Fed had not existed during 1929 and made poor policy decisions, the Great Depression wouldn’t be the landmark economic depression that we know it as. When people rapidly pulled out their money from banks (due to the stock market crash from the factors you mentioned), rapidly decreasing the money supply, the Fed did nothing to counteract this, such as buying government bonds. Before the Fed’s creation this role of “private clearinghouse” was with commercial banks. Now this role was gone from them, and as Friedman/Schwartz noted, the Fed failed to perform this duty; thus, the Fed was the primary cause of how bad the 1929 crash ended up. [5] “Income tax is authorized by Congress, which they are authorized to do, and then they allocate that money to programs they wish to fund…” Not true. A 1984 report from the Congressional Research Service found that 100% of income tax revenue is absorbed by the Federal Reserve due to the interest on its worthless paper currency. Thus, no money is ever allocated by Congress to the programs like defense and education that taxpayers believe. So essentially, people are paying around 30% of their income in order to facilitate an institution which has proven to be unhelpful in promoting stability . I’m not against paying taxes, but this high percentage is completely ridiculous and unnecessary when you consider what it goes towards. [6] My opponent contends that scrapping the Federal Reserve would leave some programs unfunded. Perhaps this would be a good thing: if Congress can’t borrow money created from nothing, they would reduce wasteful spending on programs we don’t need. The Fed has no value in economic stability, and has devalued the dollar by 96% since its creation. A return to the gold standard, with the Fed's gold reserves liquidated and revalued, would provide stability to the money supply, since there would be no reckless inflation from worthless Fed paper notes. Indeed, a gold standard is the only constitutional system according to Article I Section 10. It also has many advantages over the unconstitutional printing of worthless money. There would be very few drastic fluctuations in the currency's value, and without an official lender of last resort, banks would have to be more responsible for their actions, or else liquidate and pay off their depositors. [7]

4aee6a48-2019-04-18T13:14:13Z-00002-000

1. What are the burdens? The resolution states that abortion shouldn’t be legal in any situation. Pro’s burden, therefore, is to show that abortion should be legally impermissible. My burden is to show that, in at least one situation, abortion should be permissible. 2. Life of the motherI believe that abortion ought to be legal in cases where there is a threat to the mother’s life when not aborting. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians explains, “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.” [1] The cases where abortion is necessary include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia [2].Pro might argue that there are alternatives in such cases, and that medical technology has sufficiently progressed to prevent necessity of an abortion. First, those are wrong misconceptions, and abortions are actually often necessary. Second, even if that were the case, when there is a better chance at the life of the mother being saved from an abortion, it ought to be done. Why value the mother’s life over the life of the fetus? First, the fetus lacks any sentience or ability to experience sensation. Morality hinges on fulfilling interests, and the fetus does not have an interest to avoid death. Second, if the child is born without a mother, there might be multiple psychological difficulties faced by the child -- which are definitely harmful. 3. LibertyPeople have the liberty to do whatever they want -- without the state controlling them -- unless this liberty causes actual harm to non-consensual others [3]. The reason to support this is that the government lacks any legitimacy if it legislates against self-regarding acts. The purpose of government is to prevent harm from others, else people don’t recognize the legitimacy of the state. Abortion doesn’t actually “harm” anyone, because the fetus is unable to feel or perceive anything [4, 5]. Lacking any interest, the fetus does not experience any harm from an abortion, so nobody who doesn’t consent to the abortion is harmed. As such, the right to have an abortion is a part of this liberty. 4. ConclusionFirst, I have shown that abortion should be permitted in cases where the mother’s life depends on it, since the state ought to value the mother’s life over the fetus’s life. Second, I have shown that the right to have an abortion is an essential part of liberty since it causes no harm to the interests of a non-consensual other. For those two reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.acog.org...[2] http://www.usatoday.com...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] https://www.newscientist.com...[5] https://rewire.news...

ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00006-000

I think gay marriage should be legal because every body deserves to marry who they love.

5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00000-000

My argument is not based on any moral grounds. We have both agreed that, from the point of view of the law, the corporation is fundamentally an amoral entity. My objection is based on the following observations: The first is historical. The corporate tax rate has in fact been lowered over the past forty years. During that time, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to a small handful of wealthy individuals. The causes for this redistribution are several, but it is clear that governmental policy favoring the rich has played a major role. For instance, deregulation of the financial sector and international trade agreements (NAFTA and TPP) figure most heavily into these changes. My objection is, secondly, based on my skepticism regarding the mystical faith in free markets to keep their operations in the U.S. Taxation, as we both have agreed, is only one part of the calculus that determines how a corporation will run itself. To simply lower the rate without closing tax loopholes would constitute a rise in the real amounts corporations pay to the federal government. What reason do we have that they would bring their business back to the U.S. if such a raise in the rate is imminent? That said, there are a number of more informed ways of going about fixing the corporate tax rate. One is to base it on the disparity between CEO pay and the average worker's wage. (A bill like this is being considered in the California state legislature.) That of course won't fix many of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The broader point is that the taxes a corporation pays is the only way for the public to maintain its interests against those of the corporation. Occasionally, those two interests coincide, but history teaches us that often they do not. You may believe that you are looking at this issue from a strictly political point of view, but observe the sorts of categories you are deploying when you say that if the government did not spend so much money, it would not have to levy taxes on people. The government represents the public good independent of the drive for profits that sits at the heart of the corporation. Both government and corporations are comprised of people--but from a legal point of view, they are essentially different. The corporation is bound to profit for its survival, against the interests of the collective. As we both agree, that has nothing to do with any moral judgment. The government, on the other hand, depends on other activities for its legitimacy. On a whole, it spends as much as it needs to spend to maintain the interests of the diverse population it represents.

5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00001-000

Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense.

5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000

Your main argument encompasses the negatives of a lower Corporate Tax paired with the ability to create loopholes in taxation and end up paying very little either way. In this debate, I never stated that we should keep these loopholes. This is strictly based upon the assertion that corporate tax is entirely too high, and that we should lower it. Evidently, lowering corporate tax, making a much simpler tax code, and then creating a conjunction in which no company under any circumstances can skip taxation, would create a much better system. In the end, a nation that focuses on free trade would slash the corporate tax rate completely, and keep it at a stable 0. If government also cuts their own spending, this would be easily affordable for the United States. On a competitive level, however, we do have the highest corporate tax rate among other industrialized nations. Whether many of our own companies pay this amount is up for another debate, but the stable fact is that we have the highest corporate tax. We definitely should focus on closing up loopholes, but paired with a lower tax rate, as these loopholes are the only reasons why the remaining corporations have stayed in our nation. There are many benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate: 1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth. 2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness. 3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards. 4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity. 5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors. 6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital. 7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI). 8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting. 9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs. 10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.[1] You have also stated that corporations benefit from publicly funded organizations, such as roads, education systems, police officers, etc. Evidently, this is true. The argument here is that corporations could do the same in other nations, but people could not. In order to have safety, the government must devote funds to public organizations, which pairs with corporate likeability. Making an argument centered around the complete obliteration of the corporate tax without the complete deletion of tax loopholes will ultimately fail. For one to make an argument such as this, that person will ultimately need to understand the reason as to why there are lobbyists and tax loopholes. Our high tax rates ultimately effect corporations, and cause them to ship both jobs and capital overseas, into nations such as China or India that have much lower tax rates and much easier loopholes. Instead of basing our ideas on the general morality of corporations, which does not exist, we would create a comprehensive tax system that eliminates deception and incentivizes corporate investment. Being a Libertarian, I oppose all taxation plans, but I see most as realistically needed for the government to properly function. In the case of business, there should be little to no taxes, including both income and corporate tax. Business is based upon profit, and the desire for more profit, which people associate with the term greed. A government created legislation that undermines this desire for profit will be met by a dissociation of that profit base and relocation to a less restrictive nation, such as China and India. The three largest expenses of a corporation are wages, taxes, and supplies. As supplies and wages are necessary for the continuation of the company as well as employees desire to work in said company, removing those would be unrealistic. On the other hand, a relocation of taxes, whether based upon net revenue or net profit, would drastically impact interest of corporations as well as ability to function on a larger scale. You have previously stated that many corporations do not require a higher level education, which is wrong. According to the following source [2] (Link will be stated below), our job sector’s need for education has increased dramatically throughout the next 40 years. In accordance with this information, your argument creates the illogical fallacies that state funded education is required for these corporations to function. This may be true if you take in account the entire world, as there will be nowhere else for the corporations to go, but in the matters of the United States, which is our debate’s primary focus, state funded education will benefit the people more than the corporation. While you may believe that tax cuts will benefit the corporation more than the people, it is still clearly evident that lower taxes always equates to more incentive. We would effectively eliminate all need for tax lobbyists and special interest if we created a comprehensive tax system, or got rid of corporate tax all together. A small fraction of our government spending is created by corporate tax, which only alienates corporations and creates a disparity between economic centers in their need for unlegislated competition. In accordance with your previous statement, most of these retail jobs are held by the least educated in our society, and whether they are uneducated due to the governments failures or due to their own laziness and lack of willpower is up for discussion. Sources: [1] http://taxfoundation.org... [2]https://cew.georgetown.edu...

5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00004-000

Dismissing something easily says more about the one dismissing than about what's being dismissed. It seems that you didn't even read the objection but instead had a prefabricated response ready. I'm here to learn about the arguments surrounding these important policy issues. From your response to the objection, it seems that you're here to do something else. And that's okay of course, but let's actually try to start the debate. First, there is the empirical aspect of it, which requires calculations and some guesswork about what corporations might or might not do given a change in the tax code. Second, it necessarily involves interrogating the meaning of a corporation, since we are referring them to discrete revenue and expenditure categories that are different from private citizens and non-profit organizations. You are wrong to say that I am arguing "political drawbacks" instead of economic benefits. We are debating political economy--that point at which they intersect, to put it into academic terminology. It is useful at times to distinguish economic calculations from policy, but to fail to see how they inform one another distorts the bases on which these kinds of decisions must be made. First, I will address the empirical aspect of the argument. Then I will respond specifically to each of your points. As I indicated in my objection, the question of raising or lowering the tax rate for corporations cannot really be approached without consideration of the fact that many of the richest corporations do not pay anywhere near the going rate. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average corporate tax rate is only 12.6%. http://money.cnn.com... A report from the Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 of the biggest 280 corporations had no federal tax liability whatsoever. http://www.nytimes.com... The argument that lower tax rates will keep business in the U.S. ignores these disparities. The assertion becomes more ridiculous if we ask just what the tax rate should be. Those thirty companies that completely dodged the tax system through offshore maneuvers have no incentive to bring business back into the U.S. no matter how low the rate is. If we still entertain illusions that the global market will somehow correct this, we can refer to this study: http://www.cfr.org... and this http://www.wsj.com... Nor are corporations to blame for the fact that they dodge taxes. Which indicates the significance of my second point. It is misguided to try to blame corporations for being greedy, and the recent attempts to publish CEO pay as a way of shaming these great disparities in wealth are rather pointless, because as I said above, all considerations for a corporation are subordinated to those of the bottom line. The issue, as you said, is not whether to abolish the corporate tax altogether. The rate reflects the societal costs of protecting the public from the inherent abuses of corporate activity. Now, that is a difficult calculation to make because many of those costs are integrated into a whole web of public and private institutions. In an obvious way, this means that the corporate tax rate needs to contribute paying for the SEC, FDA, EPA and all the hosts of other agencies out there whose job is to protect the public good from the undesirable results that occur when a corporation does precisely what it's supposed to do, that is make money at all other expenses. The argument that lowering the rate will incentivize business investment ignores the complexity of these costs. That is what I was getting at in the first part of my argument, which your rejoinder ignored. Corporations rely on able-bodied Americans to buy their goods and to supply them with labor. It is this complexity that maybe gave you the mistaken notion that I thought tax revenues were distributed randomly. My understanding of it is that there are three metrics on which the rate is decided: 1) equity, which evaluates how the tax rate is distributed across individuals taxes 2) efficiency, which tries to address potential distortions in the decision-making process due to tax burdens 3) competitiveness, which is, admittedly the most vague of the three--but it has to do with maintaining rates that are comparable to those of other nations with similar GDP. It is the third that seems to be your best shot for arguing the tax rate should be lowered. Yes, it is vague, but it is a problem only because we do not tax pure profits, as explained here (p. 16-17 specifically) http://www.fas.org... You said that while "we pronounce ourselves to be the most capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation." Well, people pronounce a lot of things all the time--but if we mean by "most capitalist nation" that we are or should be engaged in some kind of free market laissez-faire system, completely free of public oversight, then you are mistaken. The so-called free market has already demonstrated that, left to its own devices, it is patently destructive and fatal to human interests. We have known that for more than a hundred years. In any case, that is a historical point which we can take up if you'd like. Nor do the present facts justify characterizing taxation on business as heavy, when compared with other industrialized nations. According to the findings of the CRS report mentioned above, the U.S. statutory rate is the highest, but the effective rate is the same as other OECD nations. In fact, the U.S. "collects less in corporate tax revenue relative to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (2.3% in 2011) than the average of other OECD countries (3.0% in 2011). " As for your remark that the public has no say about investment in the private sector, yes, of course. But you missed the point. The issue is not dictating investment--it's that we have good reason to question simplistic narratives about growth, narratives that come from the financial industry and corporations that consecrate growth and try to convince us that it is an undeniable good. Lastly, you said that "[t]he private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college." That preposterous statement is not the sort that will become any less preposterous by looking at the numbers, no matter how you spin them. For one, it's way too sweeping. Also, there is a huge part of the private sector that requires no level of higher education--nearly all the workforce of restaurant and retail industry, including the folks that make your burger or ring you up at the Walmart, nor their managers, known as middle-management, and a whole host of other working people on whom the private sector relies for the delivery of its goods and services. But more importantly, it is a gross distortion to separate the actual functioning of the private sector from the interests of the public good. Yes, there are specific occasions when such a distinction is required--for instance in legal contexts--but if decisions are to be made about political economy, we must find a perspective that understands how they interact.

648b32e-2019-04-18T19:45:35Z-00002-000

I realize you didn't bring up eating disorders. I realize you didn't' bring up body image throughout the ages and what was considered beautiful. I was simply suggesting those to illustrate the plurality of possibilities that an obese individual could have in their resentment. You can't just point the finger to envy and count it off that way. Ad the thing is you agreed with me. You said that a person has a right to express their opinion. In that line of thinking, I see nothing wrong with the gentleman you spoke of who talked about wanting skinny people to go to hell. It's his opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree. it doesn't matter what emotions it actually evokes in me, whether it be anger, pity, or indifferences. It's his opinion. He has the right to express it. Therefore, you must negate this resolution.

52065434-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00008-000

Rather than focusing exclusively on Video gaming, I will broaden this a bit to include none athletic games in general, be them using Analog or Digital technologies. For the purposes of the Argument I am going to ignore "athletic" gaming leagues and instead reference the common understanding of what a none athletic game is exemplified: Connect 4, Chess,Checkers and other games played on a board or other physical media that requires physical manipulation of pieces in some fashion. - The cause for this expansion is to establish consistency in reference for generations which grew up with mostly analog technology in their entertainment. I propose that for any future need to define a term, Merriam Webster Dictionary ( found here: http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) Be the common resource.

a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00004-000

I accept. My opponents arguments are formulated in a way where my rebuttals should be sufficient to support my case. I will argue the laws should take the Nordic approach -- specifically the Sweden model which has had significant sucess. It is the client, not the prostitute, who becomes the criminal under law. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...This model should be accepted because punishing the prostitute-type-reforms seem to be fairly unsucessful, and actually worsen current issues with prostitution. But since the Swedish model, in my opinion, seems to work, I will take their general mdel as my stance. Let's proceed.

a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00005-000

Resolution: I am arguing that prostitution be made legal in the United States. Con must argue that prostitution laws should either stay the same or become more strict. The burden of proof will be shared equally.Definition to avoid semantics: The practice of engaging in sexual activity with a customer for payment. Note that prostitutes may be male, female, or both; and their customers may be heterosexual, homosexual, or other.An introduction to my arguments: After round 1, I will elaborate on my following arguments:1) People should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.2) By making prostitution illegal, a dangerous black market is created (which is what is happening now).3) Prostitution is victimless and is therefore not a crime.4) Personal and economic decisions of the people are none of the government's business, therefore making prostitution illegal is an intrusion.5) By legalizing prostitution, prostitutes will become safer and the business will be more efficient, adding another sector to the market.Rules: Pretty generic. Maintain a respectful attitude. Round 1 is for acceptance and any clarifications, perhaps a few opening arguments. It doesn't matter.Rounds 2 and 3 will be for statement of positions and rebuttal.Round 4 will be for closing arguments only.Thanks and good luck!

1db9e0f1-2019-04-18T17:33:47Z-00001-000

The advantages inherent in the use of corporal punishment surely outweigh any negatives. For what reasons do you stand against? Your argument, please.

b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000

My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.

b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00001-000

As a person, who has lived through the standardized testing era first hand, I would like to refute the following points heavenly panda has made in support of standardized testing. 1. " Having standardized tests, would not only make students have to do well but also teachers." Define, "Doing well" I mean, having standardized tests, does increase the pressure for students and teachers to do well, however the question is, what does it pressure them to do well on? The answer to this question is standardized tests. Growing up in the standardized test era, Most of my teachers spent the majority of their time teaching their students how to do well on standardized tests. We were taught ways to eliminate answers on the multiple choice questions, in addition to this, teachers also dumbed down their curriculum, so they would have more time teaching students how to pass the standardized tests. Students also were trained to believe that every question only has one correct answer. Any student who dared to suggest otherwise, was shot down and told that whatever the test says is the correct answer. Even when the occasional error was found on the standardized tests, Students had no method of recourse when this happened and were not allowed to challenge the validness of the test's answer. This would not be the case in the working world( Ex. The existence of the Human Resources Department.) For anyone who is reading this argument, it is now clear how problematic standardized tests are. In the working world, students will not have answer choices of A. B. C. D. or E. with only one of these answers being correct. Students will need to come up with their own answers, and understand that no answer is necessarily correct above all else. Each possible answer a person comes up with has its benefits, in addition to having its downsides. For students to succeed they will need to be able to create their own answers, and be able to weigh out the pro's and cons of each to determine which one is the best..Creating finding, and picking a correct answer is only of secondary importance as many answers could be correct, however, what employers want the most for their employees is to come up with the best possible solution to problems, not just a correct one. Lets move on to point to your second point. 2. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better. Yep, they would do better.... on standardized tests! *See rebuttal to point one. OAK P.S. We already have standardized testing in elementary, middle school and high school. I know this because I lived through it and my younger sister is living through it now. Even with the existence of standardized testing teachers still could not fail their students. The ones who tried to were yelled at and belittled if they felt a student should be held back. Plus, quite a few schools already are public with regard to the schools test scores. Its the fact that these school's mark's are public, that teachers are yelled at for trying to fail students who aren't ready to enter the next grade level. It looks bad for the school and teachers if a student fails, even if the student failed because he/she refused to pay attention and ditched every other class. Schools and teachers are scared to fail students because the school could lose its funding, and teachers could lose there job if they do. Years ago, it was the fault of the student if they failed a class, now the teacher is blamed for failing a student who made no effort to learn the material.

b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00002-000

So many students have coasted throughout middle school and since teachers aren't able to fail their students, students could literally do nothing in elementary school and still pass. Having standardized tests would not only make students have to do well but also teachers. Teachers in elementary school are absolutely ridiculous. There's no pressure on them to actually teach students anything. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better.

b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00004-000

Standardized tests should be used from Grades 1-12. Round 1- first point/accept Round 2- debate " " "

51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00000-000

In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0

e8f990ae-2019-04-18T17:54:35Z-00001-000

Just for clarification, yes I did mean in the US. Thanks for correcting my statistics and yours are absolutely the correct statistics in regards to American smoker deaths per year. While you did provide some correct statistics, not all of them were correct or the best stats to use. The statement "Smoking results in a life expectancy 14 years shorter than a nonsmoker" is incorrect. If you read the statement from the source you cited it actually says that "The life expectancy for a smoker in the United States is about 64, which is 14 years shorter than the national average". The problem with this statistic is that the national life expectancy includes that of smokers and non smokers. If we look to some research done by Dr. Akwasi Osei, the Chief Psychiatrist at Accra Psychiatric Hospital, he says that "Tobacco shortens the lifespan of smokers by 25 years. In addition 70% of people who begin smoking in there teens die by age 45". 41% of men who smoked a pack or more a day died in middle age compared to 14% of men who never smoked [1]. And I don't know if you read the entire article from Live Science but they talk about cancer a bit and say a couple of interesting things. "Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; [and] smoking causes millions of deaths worldwide."[2] Smoking is damaging to your health. This is something we both agree on. The next part of my opponents reasoning for not banning smoking was interesting to me. He said that we can't ban smoking because that would be like banning alcohol (the Prohibition failed, I'm not arguing that). However I believe that these are two VERY separate issues. Firstly this is because tobacco is much more addictive than alcohol [3]. According to Michael M. Miller, MD, an addiction medicine specialist, the medical director of the NewStart Alcohol/Drug Treatment Program at Meriter Hospital in Madison, Wis. He is also the president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and an associate clinical professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, about 15% of people that drink regularly become addicted compared to 45% of people that smoke. Secondly, smoking only ends in death. When you follow the directions on a pack of cigarettes you put over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer, directly into your lungs. Smoking is so harmful that cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity (disease and illness) and premature mortality (death) [in the world]. [4] Lastly smoking indirectly hurts everyone. The people who harm themselves by smoking are a drain on both the American health care system and the American economy. Smoking cost the United States over $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care expenditures, or an average of $4,260 per adult smoker. [5] While my opponent asks for a Con vote simply because it would be similar to the Prohibition. I am willing to agree that there are some basic similarities, but fundamentally these two issues are radically different. I have shown how dangerous smoking really is, and how harmful smoking can be to all Americans. Tobacco is not alcohol and they must be treated differently. Because this will be my last post on this debate I just wanted to thank you for a clean and welcoming first experience to Debate.org. I am glad that I got to debate someone who actually knows what they are talking about even if we stand on opposite sides of this issue. I hope I didn't offend you at all because that was in no way my intent. Best of luck to you! -Frost [1] http://www.inforesearchlab.com... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://www.health.com... [4] http://www.lung.org... [5] http://www.lung.org...

9f9e9c0c-2019-04-18T15:15:51Z-00001-000

How many incidents have you heard on the news that have to do with alcohol? Barely any, you hear more car accidents than alcohol events. This shows if we ban alcohol we should also ban cars because they can cause much more danger than a drink. How stupid would that be? Then people would also have to start cycling or another way of transport to get anywhere. Some alcohols are not even that strong so if you ban alcohol then they wouldn't even be allowed any of it such as beers like Smirnoff and Alcohol Pops. It is up to them what they drink and how it may affect their health. It is their lives and if they enjoy it and they aren't affecting anyone else; let them be. http://www.createdebate.com...

7f42aaad-2019-04-18T11:15:31Z-00005-000

I think they don't deserve rights because they aren't really paying taxes. Present your opener.

579ea5ea-2019-04-18T20:00:09Z-00004-000

I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it. When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.

829468d-2019-04-18T17:21:53Z-00005-000

Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating "well-planned diets," not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.

e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00006-000

mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just 'Fashion' youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off.... it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,... it is a threat to life...

e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00000-000

"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents." -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. ".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world." --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.

79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00002-000

Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.

188872ba-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00004-000

They limit rights Yes the good old constitution the foundation of america and this debate Some opponents claim that uniforms are not a fix-all for the problems that plague schools, but instead, violate a student's right to express themselves, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a school in california, 73% of the students claim that their first ammendment rights were violated. After they signed a pettition the school went back to the old ways. The case Tinker v. Des Moines decided that students in a public school have a constitutional right to use their clothing, in this case black armbands, to express their opinions on controversial topics http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...

e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000

Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barr� Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barr� syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.

6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00005-000

prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.legalization makes prostitution safer If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants.

5fb565c6-2019-04-18T13:27:01Z-00007-000

that kids sould have allowance

d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00000-000

The day people consider sitting in a chair staring at a screen, a sport, will be a sad day indeed. My opponent seems to neglect the very definition of sport. I will provide it. The definition of sport is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." Not only do sports involve skill, but they also involve physical exertion. There is absolutely nothing physically exerting about sitting in a chair staring at a screen. Yes, I've seen people play CSGO competitively. I watched it and it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's like going to watch a football game but wait, the football players are actually just puppets on strings being controlled by people. How is staring at a screen a sport? And no, I saw absolutely no skill. I've seen these so called "professional players" completely overlook a player on their screen who's right in front of them and then they get shot dead. I've seen a so called "professional player" run into a room without even checking that its safe and get shot dead. Yes I get that these "professional players" may be somewhat intelligent, but the way they acted on screen is absolutely ridiculous. The so called skill that it takes to play these games is quite minimal, I must say. If you want video gaming to be a sport then you've got to include all video games. That includes Battlefront. And as my opponent stated, Battlefront takes little to no skill. As do many video games and what is required of a sport? Skill. Therefore if video gaming as a whole cannot be a sport, then video gaming won't be sport. Now onto button mashing. My opponent finally stops being vague about what it takes to get a video game to work. He says its pressing buttons at a specific time. So pressing buttons at a specific time qualifies to be a sport does it? Well then so does piano, and drums, and writing and texting, etc. How does pressing a button make something a sport? Because that's practically what the "sports player" is doing. There's nothing physically exerting to tapping on buttons, there's nothing in particularly skillful about tapping buttons. At least with piano and all my other examples, you get something accomplished like playing a piece, or writing a novel or sending a text. With video games, its all forgotten when you turn off the screen. In fact piano has more of a qualification than video games to become a sport. Piano is more skillful and more physically exerting than video games and we can debate that topic if you dare. Just send me a challenge and I'll tell you a million reasons why piano is more qualified than video games to be a sport. My opponent keeps talking about video gamers getting punished if they press the wrong button. But what's their punishment? Getting killed on the screen, because that's not exactly a big deal. Making a single mistake in rugby could result with you eating the dirt literally. Making a single mistake in a long distance run could be the difference from winning the race to losing it. Making a single mistake in a figure skating competition could mean going to the hospital. Making a single mistake as a goalie could cost your team the championship. Video gamer, unless they also play a sport, do not understand what true punishment is in a real sport. To them, punishment means going back to the re-spawn point and starting again. To a real sports player, it the difference between returning that serve or losing the match. The so called punishment that video gamers get is minuscule to the punishment of not landing that spin on the ice. Do I really have to pound in the fact that video gamers skills are laughable compared to real sports? Fine, I'll repeat what I said before. To return a 120mph tennis serve you have to lunge across the court in less than half a second. Angle your racket so that the ball doesn't go flying, balance yourself so you don't tip yourself over after you've returned it, measure how hard you'll hit it, and actually have the hand eye coordination to hit it. All that in less than half a second. A video gamer sees an opponent, pulls right trigger because most likely they have aim-assist on. A 800m sprinter has to pace himself. Notice that I said "sprint". That's right, the 800m race is actually a sprint. Running too fast at the beginning will make him lose, running to slow at the beginning will make him lose, having a terrible start will make him lose, starting too early will disqualify him. He will feel the burn in his lungs as his legs ache from exertion. A gamer will feel absolutely nothing when they get shot in the head. A gamer has absolutely no idea what pacing themselves mean. Winning can be the difference between forcing your body to the extremes or not. Winning a video game can be the difference between who can mash the A button the fastest. Being the best at a sport means training till your muscles are aching and you're dead tired. It means time and dedication spent to pushing your body to the extreme. It means time and dedication to practice flicking a puck in the upper left corner of the net from dawn till dusk until you finally perfect it. It means sacrifice and pain sometimes to be the best. Video gaming takes, sitting in a dark room with energy drinks piled around you, while you stare at a screen like a zombie 24/7. You see how easy that is? Video gaming takes relatively zero skill compared to real sports. All because I've never played CSGO before does not mean I can't compete with Fnatic. I could easily compete against Fnatic. Now all because you've never played rugby will mean that you definitely cannot play against a professional rugby team. You would be killed literally. You see the difference? Video gaming requires no sacrifice. It requires no physical exertion. For a sport, physical exertion is required and with it comes the sacrifice of knowing you could get hurt. Like I said before, video gamers don't understand what it's like to sacrifice that net of safety to play a sport you love. My opponent then claims that I'm not looking deep enough. The true problem is that he's not looking deep enough into sports. Sports not only involve the physical aspect, but also the mental aspect. The physical aspect includes wether or not I'm feeling my best today because that could be the difference between winning and losing it all. It includes how far should I push myself to run because training could be the difference between you and your opponent on those final 100meters. Physical aspect includes the whether, is it sunny, rainy, snowing, cold, knowing how to push through is a valuable skill. It includes analyzing my opponent, are they bigger than us and if so, how will that effect out plays. It includes being ready, always being on your toes is the difference between an ace for your opponent or a return. The mental aspect includes whether I think I can beat them of not, the mental game is important. It includes memorizing all the plays in the playbook to counter my opponent. It includes the science behind all sports, how many grooves on a golf ball is too much. It involves intimidating the other team, the Irish rugby cheer is something my opponent should watch. I could go on but I'd run out of room. Do video games really involve all of this? Because I doubt it. I doubt that everyone in Battlefront is playing like this yet even in casual soccer games, kids have to know if their pushing themselves too far. Video games lack the physical aspect and therefore are not even half as deep as sports are. The science behind some sports are actually somewhat astonishing. Maybe it's my opponent who isn't looking deep enough? Then my opponent goes on to explain the "strategy" in video games. It's actually quite funny how he literally states that the so called "strategies" are actually just a bunch of random ways to kill a person by saying the word "sometimes" within his explanation. Oh, sometimes (american) football players do slants, but sometimes they also do a Hail Mary. It just depends on whether they're there or not. If football were actually like that, then yes, video games could be considered a sport. But football games aren't like that. Football games actually do have strategy and actual planned out plans. Which my opponent just so kindly provided that video games do not. It's really not fair to compare video games to real sports is it? Then why are video games want to be real sports when they can't even compare? Yes I can judge that doing x has little skill because y does this. Each does have their own skill as my opponent has conceded. Sports having a lot and video games having very little. The fact that we are arguing whether video games should be considered a sport is why I'm not taking video gaming seriously. Like I said before, it'll be a sad day when reclining on your chair staring at a screen becomes a sport.

d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00001-000

The point that I was trying to get across when saying Battlefront is a casual game is that you said that you played the game and got to a high level fairly quickly, and therefore said there was no skill in the game, which is entirely untrue. I concede that Battlefront does not require much skill, but like I said, it is a casual game. Casual games are not meant to be hard or difficult, they are just meant to be fun. You then go on to say that "just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't sport?" Golf is meant to be a sport, but it can be taken casually as well which brings me onto you continuing to insist that button mashing is all gaming is. If that were true, then I could say that hitting a ball with a stick is all Golf is, but as I said previously, there is more to it than just that. If you want to play Golf competitively, you have to know things like how the wind affects the ball, and many other factors that I do not know of as I do not play Golf - it isn't really something I'm very interested in. As with football (or soccer as you call it), yes it's a sport, but it is non-contact sport. Which means that if you are talking about contact sports, you wouldn't include football as it is not that kind of sport, just how I do not include Battlefront as it is not the kind of game I am talking about. Button mashing isn't all it takes to play a video game. I do see your logic and your reasoning, but it is very flawed. Button mashing would be just that - mashing all the buttons with no thought or clear purpose. Maybe there's a quick time event that requires you to mash a certain button, but if you went into a competitive match of CS:GO and simply mashed all the buttons when you saw someone, you would die very quickly. As I stated previously, the definition of skill is being good at something, and the kind skill required to play CS:GO and to play Golf are quite different. In CS:GO, you need to react faster than your opponent and have the skill to be accurate enough to land most of your shots on their body and kill them before they can kill you. You need to know how grenades will bounce of off surfaces so you know the best angles at which the throw them. You need to know how to counter each weapon in the game so as to minimise the chances of getting killed by them. In Golf, you need to know wind patterns, you need to know the right pitch at which to hit the ball, and many other things that again, I do not know. My point here is that pressing the right things at the right time is very different to button mashing which will get you nowhere. I have never played rugby before as, again, it is not something I particularly enjoy, be it real life or video game. However, I do understand that playing rugby in real life is a lot harder than playing rugby on a video game, however every rugby game out there is a casual game meant for fun, so it is not going to be very hard. If a rugby game was made targeting the hardcore gamers, it would include mechanics to suit that and button mashing would be out of the equation. It would be hard and it would need skill. You would have to know what buttons to press and when, and it would punish you for making a mistake, just like real rugby would. You go on to say that the skill CS:GO players is laughable. Well, let me ask you a question: How many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played? Just like how you said that if you were to pit me against professional rugby players, I wouldn't stand a chance, the same is true for you. You simply would not stand a chance because yes, you can learn how to play quickly (the whole point of tutorials), but that doesn't mean you can compete against Fnatic or other professional teams. These are people that know the ins and outs of the game and know just what to do, when to do it, and how to do it to near perfection. Yes, you could sit down some rugby players and they'll learn how to play in a minute (again, the whole point of tutorials), but if you gave CS:GO players and a gun and told them to shoot a target, they would learn pretty quickly how to control the gun and hit the target because they are much smarter than you give them credit for. I used the example of Snooker to try and tell you that you need to look beyond the surface because Snooker is something I know and love and so I can talk about confidently and know about I'm talking about, and it's a real life example of a sport that if you look at it just on the surface (like what you're doing with video games) it's very basic and technically shouldn't be a sport, but when you look at all the different aspects and requirements, you can see that Snooker is actually quite complex and requires a high level of skill. You say that you laught at the fact that I say there is strategy in CS:GO, and once again I ask you, how many times have you played CS:GO competitively, or even watch players play on YouTube? If you were to watch the right people, you would see that good players communicate and form plans. For example, you may throw a smoke and then have one person flank and wait behind enemy lines, and then either give a distraction for the person behind the smoke to rush, or wait for one or more of the enemy to go into the smoke to see what's behind there. Sometimes 3 or 4 people can be behind that smoke to ambush the people they they know are going to come through eventually. Sometimes, it could be a mere distraction so that they are focused on the smoke, thinking some people are going to rush through, only to come behind them and attack where they aren't looking. I have had cases where good communication has led to a pincer movement and won us the game because the enemies attention is split between two attacking groups. I understand your reasoning for your disdain towards gaming, but it's simply not fair to judge gaming the way you do. You can't really compare games to real life and say there's no skill in doing x because doing y does this and that, because they are two very different things each with their own kind of skill. To compare them is to compare Star Trek to Star Wars and say which one is better. They both go about the sci-fi theme very differently. One likes to be more scientific about it, the other likes to be more fun and action filled.

fdc31592-2019-04-18T19:40:00Z-00005-000

I think that the minimum wage should not be abolished because I think everyone deserves a fair wage. Your response?

c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00004-000

My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.

427a0855-2019-04-18T11:43:00Z-00000-000

Sports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you"re a Jew.

b939135f-2019-04-18T15:37:57Z-00005-000

Hi. This is a 3-round, 72 hour, 10,000 word limit polite conversation whether homeschooling is beneficial or not. If you believe homeschooling is detrimental, then I want to hear why. If you've been around enough, you know how this goes. For the new guys, welcome, and the pattern is traditionally "The first round is the challenge and acceptance, the second round consists of the main arguments, and everything else after that is rebuttals." This is my observation from this very site. If it is done differently for anyone else here, no problem.

a490c460-2019-04-18T19:21:31Z-00000-000

I thank my opponent for the opportunity he has provided me in this debate to show why the death penalty should not remain legal. As to his points: "The average cost per inmate (not on death row) in California costs the state 49,000 multiply that by 680 inmates charged with the crime of murder and you will get 33,320,000 the average cost of medicine per inmate is $6,935 multiply that by 680 you get 4,715,800 add that number with 33,320,000 you get 38,035,800(per year). As you can the price of holding a regular inmate exceeds that number." What about food? Clothes? Costs of keeping them under guard? Septic system costs? Administrative costs? Etc. Keep in mind that people on death row are kept in prison nearly as long as those in for life. On top of the ordinary costs, they also have to have greater supervision, plus costs for execution methods, plus added costs of appeals and heightened innocence investigations. "The fact of the matter is the reason that our current system is as costly as it is, is due to the lack of executions in California not because of them. In 30 years California has only executed 13 out of the hundreds of people on death row." Yes. They have done this because of errors in the system and the need to provide due process. In other words, because they have to in order to keep the death penalty just. "… putting a couple of bullets into the murderers the moment they are convicted of the crime [is] my idea of death penalty reform …" Then you have (hypothetically) just killed this man: http://forejustice.org... More to the point, the immediate application of a penalty without judicial review is a denial of due process, essential to justice, and smacks of radical anti-democratic authoritarianism. This is something the United States should never tolerate if it wishes to keep itself true to its ideals. "… every single person accused of murder gets a fair trial. That is exactly what due process is." This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The appeals and review process is a part of due process. It isn't just the right to confront your accusers before they take you out back and shoot you. Also, no, not every person gets a fair trial. See the above example for the unfair results that occur following prosecutorial misconduct. Remember that people run these trials, not God. Justice relies upon the hope that enough people in the mix will prevent anyone from playing God. What you are arguing is neither right, nor just, nor moral. "People who are convicted of murder obviously do not get to enjoy their right to life since they have taken somebody Else's right to life therefore they should be put to death immediately." What of people who are falsely convicted of murder? If you take that person's life, wouldn't that make you a murderer who needs to be immediately shot? Also, rights exist for the benefit of the right bearers … the dead are no longer around to demand justice, so at best we can argue that the social prescription of death for murder is intended to provide effect for the rights of those mourning the aggrieved. Their rights would just as well be served knowing that, for as long as the offender can be kept alive, the offender will suffer a loss as they have. "Yes, every study has a margin of error but how can you look at that graph I cited and not admit that the death penalty is working in some way[?]" Because I can provide any number of other events that occurred in one of the peaks, like 1990; I turned nine, for example. Oops, my bad. This isn't an issue of a margin of error. This is an issue of knowing how to read statistics. "On the national scale the graph I cited above shows that with more executions leads to less murders." No, it showed that a higher number of executions correlate with a lower number of murders. That doesn't mean having more executions results in fewer murders. Perhaps having fewer murders resulted in more executions, because more resources ordinarily devoted to handling new cases can be devoted to finishing the job on the old ones. "I tried reading your source but read nothing about the correlation between drugs and murder." The point was that the spike in murders occurred following the national crackdown on marijuana (check the dates). Using your logic that means the illegality of marijuana resulted in more people acting aggressively and committing murder. "Your source does not say we are killing them it simply states the number of people on death row." I will concede that. We just have more people *lined up* to be killed. That still means that the death penalty isn't deterring. "There is two reasons for that. 1.population increase in the U.S. and 2. there has been a decline in executions in many states such as the example I made with California." 1.If population increase was to blame, but the death penalty worked as a deterrent, we would not see population increases correlating with death row population statistics. 2.If declines in executions deter, then why is it that those states with no executions (less than less – none) have fewer murders than even California? Also – this: http://www.prisonactivist.org... "But, there is immediate threat how about those prison guards who are killed while watching inmates? The threat will always be there until they are rightfully put to death." Only until the next batch rolls in as murder has not been deterred. You're arguing incapacitation now, which is invalid for any number of reasons by itself, not the least of which is that there is no way to know who will reoffend. "Capital punishment is the punishment murderers receive." No, I meant … *groan* … you are comparing apples and oranges when you speak about people not having the ability to defend themselves and not being able to punish. One action is taken to prevent unjustified harm, the other to discourage further unjustified harm. You can not use the rationale for one in place of the other. They meet two entirely different objectives. "Whether that is true or not I am sure you will find that the most heinous crimes you can think of are on the rise. I am sure you can equate that to a moral decline." They are not. There is no ‘moral decline.' If anything, we are on a moral upswing and would be doing very well if not for some stupid economic decisions we've made over the past two decades. "North Carolina banned executions of the mentally ill. Giving people who aren't mentally ill a defense for claiming a illness they do not have." Also, it gives the mentally ill who are really mentally ill the clemency that they deserve. Which is more important: the few unworthy lives spared or the few innocent lives saved? If you're for victims' rights, you have to argue the latter. Yet to support the death penalty, you have to argue the former. That's outright hypocrisy. In conclusion, my opponent failed to show why the current death penalty system should remain. He then argued that there should be a new death penalty system, one that remains as unjustified but is more cost effective because it is unjust. I have argued for the system that is cost effective, just, and justified: life imprisonment. I now strongly urge a vote for Con, so that we citizens of the United States can move beyond this very silly and somewhat tragic moment in our history and move towards a new era of heightened civility and efficiency.

44682789-2019-04-18T19:22:18Z-00006-000

I suspected my opponent would do this: "mongoose updated his stand on the BIG Issues.1 hour ago" He essentially changed all of his opinions to "Not Saying". Fortunately, I foresaw this and copied all of his "BIG Issues" viewpoints onto a .txt file on my computer. I will still use them as if they were truly on his profile. Compulsory- reqiired allegiance- loyalty I expect you to re-answer Number 3 from Round 1, as you were incorrect in guessing it. 1. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own homes? 2. Is the ability to smoke cigarettes a "tobacco right"? 3. Should people be aloud to smoke cigarettes if they can afford the medical expenses involved in potential resulting treatment? 4. Should people be aloud to chew tobacco as long as the dip is properly disposed of after use? 5. Is the ability to chew tobacco a "tobacco right"? 6. Are Wikipedia articles that have over 25 sources reliable? 7. When using Wikipedia sources in debates, do you only use reliable ones? 8. Was the United States a good country when under President George W. Bush in 2004? 9. In U.S. history class, was it obvious that the government was conveying its beliefs? 10. Is the current public education system compulsory?

6a618e4b-2019-04-18T16:23:33Z-00000-000

I have proven that Cons statements, " Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child. " That this is not true. I have shown that Video Games are Directly influencing kids, and not the parents buying them. This Refutes Cons 1st Contention "Parents are Disregarding the Game" Also I have shown proven evidence that kids who have played video games with violence have shown a increase in violence and aggression in real life. This Refutes, Cons 3rd contention "No Sufficient Studies" . http://videogames.procon.org... I have shown that we can directly relate events to other events. Adam Lanza had previously played game where he controls a character that enters a school and shoots everyone. --- We can directly relate this to the Sandyhook shooting. (Video Games to Violence) Just as Con said in his opening argument " It just doesn't relate" --- BUT IT DOES. I said the following Quote to Con in my last argument. "Now, I wish for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS there is NO WAY Adam Lanza, could've been influenced by video games to commit this horrendous crime. " He has failed to do so. So his statement " That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. " is actually Fasle. I have given proof that Video Games are Relating to Violence amongst kids. Cons Statement - "Please vote con as his case is contradictory and holds no ground in this debate, he is completely contradictory of himself, and has failed to attack my second and third contention. " Is ENTIRELY FALSE. I have attacked his 3rd contention via --- . http://videogames.procon.org... , and how can I Refute a Philosophy, that is the most proven and undoubtedly true Philosophy ever! That is like trying to debate that Water isn't a Liquid! I will not try and dispute Common sense, but my opponent is. Voters, please, make your own decisions, but please keep in mind that Con has showed no evidence to attack my studies, that DO SAY that violence has increased amongst students because of video games, and realize that we as Humans can make relations from events to other events, via the evidence I HAVE SHOWN. In this case, Video Games to Violence. So, Vote Con. I would like to personally thanking con for bringing up a good debate.

b38c2a52-2019-04-18T14:11:17Z-00009-000

This debate is "should abortion be legal?" Short answer no... Long answer noooooooo... Lol, but seriously, Abortion is murder any way that you look at it. I am excited for an intelligent debate

633485c6-2019-04-18T16:57:18Z-00003-000

Marriage is that moment went you want to be with the person you love for the rest of your life. My opinion, marriage should be banned period but obviously that isn't going to happen. Just remember that the leading cause of divorce is marriage. But back to my point. If two people are in love they should have every right to get married. Gays will fight like straight people do, they will make love like straight people do, and they will live their lives together like straight people do. Also, if you think gays can be together, then why can they not get married?

868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00002-000

I'll start with your argument about exploitation. I hate to say this, I really do, but the exploitation kind of comes with the territory. Sure, users can be smart, and not give out information, but, like you say, some will slip up, and let information out there that is personal to them. However; this is a risk a lot of people are willing to take. Why? Comparitively, it doesn't happen that often. Sure, there are hundreds of cases every few months of people getting cyber-stalked, and people losing money, but compared to the millions of people that have information out there, this isn't a significant problem. Part of this is alleviated, by the use of specialized networks, because everyone knows everyone there. I can see where you are comng from regarding the hardcore user thing, but still (and I understand you brought up studies), that's still a personal opinion. You're resolution is to say no to online social networks, by claiming they are a waste of time. No one has a right to say that, except for the user themselves. Casual users don't really become hardcore users, they generally just have accounts, and may end up being online a cumulative 15 hours a week. This is affirmed by the fact that a lot of people that have Facebook, are leading members of their community, and their school. If they were hardcore users, they would not have time for such endeavors. Also with the hardcore thing, it may in fact be better for them to have a life online. They may be ostracized from their peers, and may be unsocial in real life, but online, they have a social life. Again, your view of a social life isn't necessarily theirs. If suicide rates were really how you say they are, then there would be A LOT more suicides, because there are in fact a lot of people that thrive online. As for specialty sites, there are a multitude of networks that people can join, to meet other people like them. vampirefreaks.com - Not sure how you will view this, because I'm not sure how you view the goth subculture, but this is a site for people that are into death metal, and for people that are members of the gothic subculture. It allows them to talk to other people just like them, without the repercussions of the real world. purevolume.com - This is a pseudo-social network, giving users the ability to sign up as musicians or listeners, and upload/listen to music. It can connect a lot of people through music. specialopspaintball.com/brigade - This is a network where paintball players can discuss the sport, as well as meet in real life to have matches. These sites are not a waste of time to the users. Again, I'll reiterate that one of your few claims against these networks is that they are a waste of times. Maybe they are for you, but the ones that use them, generally see them as a good use of time.

868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00003-000

Thanks BBE for accepting the challenge; may the better debater win! Well, I pretty much like the categorization you've done but would like to mention an important point that you've missed to observe -- a user usually enters as a casual user and then gradually becomes a hardcore one as starts exploring various so called "cool" features of OSNs. Studies on OSNs have shown that people spend hours in these virtual worlds browsing other user's profiles, reading about their interests and events in their personal lives (whom they don't even know and mostly not going to meet in their lives). This time is nothing but a waste, isn't it? What possible difference is going to happen in my life if I don't know what some unknown Shelly (from London) and some unknown Michael (from Italy) did on their weekends? People keep on browsing through other's albums and watching their birthday videos -- why? just because they are posted there! As you pointed out, the worst part is when they become hardcore users -- live on OSNs! By the way, it's not just about getting overweight my friend; it's about being socially isolated. Further it's about committing suicides due to the depression that comes with social loneliness. There is a disturbing correlation between time spent in online social networks and intensity of social isolation -- social isolation is found(1) growing exponentially with time spent on OSN! As per Durkheim's theory of egoistic suicide, social isolation and loneliness can cause depression. And his theory points out that less integration with society and community around us often leads to suicide (2). So instead of wasting time getting farther away from real world, why not to go out and meet real people? May be its not that easy to "poke someone" or to "add as a friend" in real world ... may be it takes more confidence, liveliness and skill to make connections in real world ... but finally, the life is here my friend, a real world around us! Because no one in their neighborhood comes to them and extends a hand for friendship, they prefer to build worlds largest friend-list on "www.facebook.com". It might make them feel important temporarily but reality is going to knock doors in the afternoon or may be in the evening, for sure. Then what? Online world will never be an alternative. Even after spending hours in virtual world, one can't get that peace of mind or a feel of refreshment that comes with spending quality time with your real friends in real world activities. We're real human beings ... and so, by nature, need company of real people. It can't be simulated by some software. OSNs have (supposedly) been build to bring people closer but what they do is to create socially isolated individuals with a millions (may be more) "names" listed in their friends-list there -- whom they rarely interact after adding to the list! Now about the specialist users. Well, online social networks are built for masses and so respond best when used in general. You find thousand people who doesn't share any interests with you before finding one that does. Again, by design, OSNs are not for specialists -- if designed with a specific interest in mind then that would impact their chances of attracting other large population. If you're specifically looking for people whom you can share a specific interest (say, like to debate) then you've to search for platforms designed specifically for that purpose. On OSNs, its hard to make those sort of connections because there people come to do general things -- a "time-pass" kinda stuff. It's like installing windows operating system to use calculator functionality ... isn't it better get a calculator itself? It's better to find a platform designed for specific purpose as it will be limited to only people that you're interested in interacting with and also will be feature rich for that specific interest -- moreover as they're designed for that specific purpose, you're implicitly asked to do that something specific and so at the end -- something useful. As an example, you've suggested that people may want to create events and invite others by using OSNs-- why not to use "www.evite.com" which is specifically designed for that purpose? If you miss your assignment, drop to your friend's place or use the email-alias to communicate with other students in your class. If you like music, join a music class or go to musical events -- you will definitely find more similar-minded people there. OSNs are jack of all (good for nothing specific) and that's why a waste of time. Now coming towards another major issue (after social isolation and waste of time) -- private information exploitation. As a matter of fact, information posted there by users can be (and has been) exploited in variety of ways. Well, someone may say, they're not bound to reveal their information but there are two reason that people do it. Firstly they are not aware of possible ways that their information could be exploited (and we can't simply expect them to be because all are not tech-savvy). All newbies there are too overwhelmed by "cool" features of OSNs that they forget that there exist a word called "privacy" and write everything in their profile, even their private relationships and beliefs. They think it makes their profile more "cool". Secondly, OSNs, by design, ask people reveal as much information as possible -- to create "complete" and "attractive" pages showing what they like to do, whom they like, their photographs, their videos, what they did today etc. At the end, more the people reveal, more other people would like to visit their pages (and so more traffic on OSNs). As you've already mentioned about some information exploitation possibilities, I don't need to to stress further a point that we already agree upon. Now my friend, if you're just relaxing because the percentage is small today then that's dangerous. There is a known threat and so we can't ignore it just because not "enough" incidents have happened or published -- "yet". Ultimately, as far as relationships are concerned, Internet's vantage point is it's asynchronous nature. It's better to use it for that advantage. It can be used to keep in touch with friends and family whom you can't call up regularly or may be it's better to use email/instant message if you just wanna say "hi! whassup?". That's it. But when it's considered as replacement for some real world activities or relationships, it's certainly waste of time (and further dangerous) -- and that's what's a goal of OSNs -- so we should just say NO to them! (1) Stanford study chart: http://cse.stanford.edu.... (2) Egoistic suicide: http://en.wikipedia.org... (in suicide section of the article)

868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00004-000

Moving on; Now, it is my understanding that your two main points stemming from your opening argument are these: (1) Online Social Networks are waste of time for everyone except for advertisers -and- (2) Users can be exploited because of what information they post onto the site. To begin, I will answer your first argument, by highlighting three types of users that make accounts on social networks (SNW) 1: The casual user 2: The specialist 3: The hardcore user (1) Casual User: These are the ones that create accounts maybe because it's the cool thing to do, or just to keep up on the goings on in there life with friends/family/etc. They typically check there account every few days, answering messages/friend requests/wall posts, things of that nature. The benefits of the SNW for these users are small, but they justify actually having accounts. On most SNWs, one is able to create an event, and invite friends to it. This is one plus from social networking, the ability to plan things online, and talk to people that you may not normally talk to. Also, it can be used as a beefed-up email, if one misses an assignment, they can message a peer to get the notes. Moving on: (2) Specialist: These are the ones that make accounts, because of something they do. Myspace has gotten a lot of credibility for Myspace Music, a subsidy of the large site. A lot of current musicians have Myspace accounts that people can go to, to listen to music. Myspace Music has helped propel many artists. One such is Josephine Collective, a band out of Johnson County Kansas. They're one of the biggest things in Kansas right now, and have a very large cult following. Because of their Myspace page, a Warner Music representative offered them a contract, and they will have a major label release in the summer. Also, there have been specialized sites that musician's can sign onto, such as Purevolume, or Imeem. Because of the mass amount of SNWs out there that support music, a lot of indie bands have gained popularity, such as Vampire Weekend and the Black Keys. Specialized SWNs aren't just limited to music, though. While major ones such as Facebook allow groups to be made, so say, a runner can find running partners, there are smaller, more intimate sites, that allow everyone to know each other. There are sites for certain sports, or for people who like to write. Now onto number three. (3) Hardcore Users: These are the ones that basically live online. Now, whether or not people in the "real world" think this is right or not, the user still does it. It might seem like a bad habit, but in actuality, aside from the chance of becoming overweight, it really isn't. There are plenty of people in the world like this, the ones shunned by their peers, the ones that no one in "real life" likes. But, they thrive online, by talking to people just like them. Perhaps they just have an interest in something that no one in their town does. That's what's beautiful about the internet, is that you can find another person that shares the same interests as you. To tell people like this that SWNs waste their time, is just overzealous, because you're not the one living their life. Perhaps it's your goal to do things off the internet, but here are just three prime examples of people that, while they may be on SWNs a lot, don't waste their time. It's there choice, not yours. Now, onto my second argument: Although there have been instances where people have been scammed, or kidnapped, because of what they post online, this really isn't the majority. When you have millions of people signed onto these thing, having a few thousand get hurt isn't significant. Not to mention the fact that the sites clearly state about the threats of putting information out into the public. Also, there are privacy settings that a user could implement, and it comes down to good judgment and common sense. This isn't just limited to SWNs, it is a bad thing that injustices happen, but they'll happen on any level of the internet, if the person is ignorant enough to fall into a trap. It can happen to Myspace users, it can happen to blog users. The internet isn't safe, but, it's not dangerous either, if you have common sense. In conclusion, it's pretty selfish to have your viewpoint, because everyone makes accounts for different reasons. Just because you may not want to "waste your time on one" doesn't mean that it is, in fact, a waste of time. Thank You. -BBE

868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00005-000

The term "Online Social Networks" here refers to -- A web service that uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. For example -- Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, SecondLife etc. Online Social Networks (OSNs) are waste of time for a major percentage of online users; except a few those benefit by advertising their products and spamming everyone else. The information provided by users can be exploited in a multitude of ways; I can elaborate more on those as we proceed through the debate.

1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00002-000

I would like to clarify my viewpoint. I believe that parents have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. I also believe that those parents who decide not to vaccinate their children, should not be denied an education but should be denied the ability to integrate their children into the public school system. That being said there are other methods of learning and accessing a proper education outside of public school also this debate is nothing more than hypothetical scenario for me. I will further support my points below. Contention 1: The Constitution makes no mention of education reserving it as a right given on the state level, See the 10th amendment. The state ultimately has the power over educational institution and ultimately makes all the laws. There is a universal right to an education but there is no universal right to attend any specific public education institution. This would not infringe upon the free will of an individual at all seeing as they have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but access to state regulated public schools can be restricted for good reason without infringing on rights or being unlawful. (students who have been expelled). (1)Contention 2: See my above point. No free wills are being broken here. "What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "By Social Contract I mean parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others. Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time. Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2)"No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "That is a bold statement, the CDC says otherwise: "No federal vaccination laws exist, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Depending on the state, children must be vaccinated against some or all of the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, partisans, tetanus, and polio. " (3)"What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. "Measles was declared eliminated in the US by 2000 and its recent comeback can be attributed to the growing population of unaffected children. This is a reference to a CDC study supporting my point. "Sporadic importations of measles into the United States have occurred since the disease was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000 (1). During January--July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000--2007. * This report updates an earlier reporton measles in the United States during 2008 (2) and summarizes two recent U. S outbreaks among unaffected school-aged children. Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years, and 91% were in persons who were unaffected or of unknown vaccination status. Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing (3,4). The findings demonstrate that measles outbreaks can occur in communities with a high number of unaffected persons and that maintaining high overall measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage rates in the United States is needed to continue to limit the spread of measles. " (4)"That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. "This is irrelevant to my argument. Back to you! 1) . http://www.departments.bucknell.edu... 2) . http://www.westonaprice.org... \3 ) . http://www.cdc.gov...4) . http://www.cdc.gov...

1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00003-000

We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)

a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00000-000

High cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food. Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just say correlation=/=causation and wave that away. Low spending=low gdp. That is a fact. What calculations do you have to prove that that particular tax rate yields the same revenue as our current system? None.

a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00005-000

the burden of proof is shared. i say the federal income tax serves no purpose and should be abolished.

61bcb727-2019-04-18T15:46:03Z-00003-000

My opponent makes two really simple, really flawed points. But before I start with them, I want to make a quick point. All of his arguments use statistics and other claims that he never sources at all. There's no way to actually verify he's telling the truth in this case. Insofar as he didn't do that, you're prefering my arguments over his because I'm at least providing citations and sources to voters so they can verify I'm being honest. And, don't let him just make up for it in the next round by retroactively providing them since I don't have another round to respond to them, which makes it inherently unfair for him to just save arguments and sources until I don't get a chance to respond to them. Animal Testing is cruel/inhumane:First, ignore his cosmetic testing example. I'll concede that animals should not be tested for the safety of different cosmetic products, but rather only should they be tested on for medical reasons (i.e. the development of different medicines/vaccines/techniques). Second, turn this argument in my favor. Animal testing gives us what we need to fight diseases and sickness in both animals and humans, leading to the reduction of pain and suffering for both animals and humans. I solve for long-term suffering. Still (1): "Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ... Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering. In addition, BIO has reported, animal research has led to 111 USDA-approved biotech-derived veterinary biologics and vaccines that improve the health of ... animals. ... Biotechnology has improved the way veterinarians address animal health issues through the use of biotech vaccines and diagnostic kits and improved breeding programs that can help to eliminate hereditary diseases."Third, his argument is just untrue. We do everything we can to ensure that animals aren't harmed and don't suffer. Still continues:"The USDA and National Institutes of Health regularly inspect research institutions to verify the well-being and care of animals ... animals used in research do not suffer more pain or distress than animals outside the lab. In fact, lab animals often receive the best of care because of their value to researchers. Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. ... only 5 percent of research and development involves animals – and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats and rabbits. ... Computer modeling has reduced the amount of animal research. So has cell-based research. The use of animal embryonic stem cells in drug testing has dramatically improved the quality of such tests, and more quickly provided researchers with information about the safety and efficacy of drugs." Fourth, even if you buy his argument that animals are suffering from testing, the affirmative doesn't provide a single reason why this isn't something that can't be solved back for by proposiong tougher restrictions and oversight on animal research to make sure that any experimentation on animals involves the absolute minimual amount of suffering, if any suffering even needs to be inflicted, and that the suffering is applied in a humane fashion. Just because the way it's being performed in the status quo isn't optimal, that doesn't justify doing away with the entire system. That's like saying you need to buy a new car because you're headlights are starting to get dimmer. Just fix the faulty parts and you're golden.Fifth, there's no impact to his speciesism argument. All he says is that "Grrrr don't be speciesist, you speciesist!" like it's some fancy buzzword that awards him free elo. He's not actually giving any kind of reason why speciesism is bad, which becomes problematic since speciesism is just irrelevant. The "hunter in the woods" analogy is a good example of this: imagine you and you're hunting dog are out in the woods and you stumble across a rather angry bear. You're faced with two choices: run and have the bear catch you and kill you since you're dog is going to outrun you, or sic your dog on the bear and run. The choice isn't even debatable; as much as you love your dog and care about its wellbeing, we all inherently prefer our own wellbeing over the wellbeing of other animals. Sixth, his comparison between animals and the mentally challenged is faulty. There are certain categories that distinguish between the two. Frey (2):"to include the baby by means of the potentiality argument: the baby is potentially rational. ... to include the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the similarity argument: in all other respects except rationality and perhaps certain mental accomplishments, the severely mentally-enfeebled betray strong similarities to other members of our species ... One might try to include both babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled by means of the religious argument: babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled possess immortal souls. ... the religious argument does separate both from Fido, who is not conceded an immortal soul by the argument's proponents."Seventh, we can't place animals on the same level as humans because they are incapable of grasping ethical premises, which makes them unable to enter a community of moral agents. Cohen (3):"Patterns of conduct are not at issue. Animals do ... exhibit remarkable behavior at times. Conditioning, fear, instinct, and intelligence all contribute to species survival. Membership in a community of moral agents nevertheless remains impossible for them. Actors subject to moral judgment must be capable of grasping the generality of an ethical premise in a practical syllogism. Humans act immorally often enough, but only they ... can discern, by applying some moral rule to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to he performed. The moral restraints imposed by humans on themselves are thus highly abstract and are often in conflict with the self-interest of the agent. Communal behavior among animals ... does not approach autonomous morality in this fundamental sense. Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed ... is done with a guilty mind" Alternatives to Animal Testing: First, even if he's winning that there are better alternatives to animal testing, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't test. Just because there's a better way to get to work than walking (i.e. driving is preferable to walking) doesn't exclude walking from being a way we can travel to work. Second, alternatives just don't replace animal testing. Murali (4): "The list of proposed alternatives to animal research proposed in the article calling for an end to it include prevention programs, epidemiological studies, autopsies, in vitro research in cell cultures and computer modelling. The first three are not alternatives at all. They don’t actually lead to the development of novel treatments, just a better understanding of the efficacy of existing ones. Meanwhile the last two are already commonly used in most labs, but prior to and in conjunction with work with animals. And as powerful as modern computers are, there’s still simply no comparison – the idea of successfully simulating the complexity present in organism-level biological systems is a pipe dream at present."This has two impacts: one, that his proposed alternative of in vitro testing doesn't actually replace animal research, but rather is used in conjunction with it, so that's not actually a reason to get rid of animal testing, and two, that no current alternatives are as viable as animal testing is at present.Third, his claim that animals are bad test subjects to compare to humans is just blatantly false. Murali continues:"Researchers are very aware that animals aren’t people. Obviously animal responses aren’t the best possible predictor of treatment effects or side-effects in individual humans. But, what most scientists study are evolutionarily conserved physiological processes, that is, processes that are similar across different species. Say someone is developing a drug that should act on opioid receptors. The questions researchers ask are – does the drug target what it’s supposed to, and then, does that give rise to a benefit in treating a disease? To this end, mouse opioid receptors work just as well as human ones. Far from treating animals like small humans, individual animal models and even strains within individual animals are analysed many times over for their suitability to the research being done, and constantly improved until the best possible parallel is found. One strain of mouse, for instance, is very good for replicating a human-like pathology of asthma compared to others that barely develop any signs of respiratory illness. Instead of rejecting all mouse models of asthma as useless, researchers choose the strain that allows them to best approximate the problem."Sources:(1) - Tom Still [Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison].Animal testing: Beyond the protests, instances of mistreatment are rare. WTN News. http://wtnnews.com... (2) - R. G. Frey. Animal Rights. Analysis, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Jun., 1977), pp. 186-189. Oxford University.(3) - Cohen, Carl. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research", New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315, issue 14, October 1986, pp. 865–870.(4) - http://theconversation.com...;

61bcb727-2019-04-18T15:46:03Z-00005-000

Why Not Testing on Animals is Bad:This one is simple enough: think of all the great medical advances we've had in the past century or so. For pretty much every medical advancement in the past century, there's been an animal behind it. Let's just take a look at how far we've come just from animals alone.The University of Minnesota actually published a small, but not insignficant, list of medical advances due to animals, along with what animal was credited for the discovery[2]. I won't cover them all, but let's just get some of the highlights for the road:1990 - We developed more advanced organ transplant technicques thanks to dogs, pigs, sheep, and cows.1982 - We developed a treatment for leprosy thanks to the armadillo.1964 - We discovered ways to regulate one's cholestoral, thanks to the rat.1956 - We developed ways to perform open-heart surgery and invented pacemakers thanks to the dog.1954 - We made a vaccine for polio thanks to mice and monkeys1921 - We discovered insulin thanks to dogs and fish.It even goes back further than the past century, going all the way to 1881 where we developed a vaccine for anthrax because of sheep and 1796 where we developed a vaccine for smallpox thanks to cows.But why freaking stop there? Lets throw out some more discoveries from animal testing[3]. Breast Cancer? Animal research was crucial when we developed Herceptin and Tamoxifen, which help cure breast cancer. Leukemia? Testing on mice lead to the development of Gleevec, which is the first molecularly targeted drug against cancer, and we also use Gleevec to gastrointestinal stromal tumor (known as GIST) which was untreatable before it's development.Lung Cancer? Researching on mice is critical to understanding, preventing, and detecting lung cancer, as well as for developing new therapies for treating it. Heart Disease or Stroke? Everything from what foods to eat to minimze risk to the development of statins, a pill that helps control cholestoral and reduce risk for heart disease, come off of the back of animal studies.I could keep going, but I think I've made my point fairly clear: medical advances stop if we stop testing on animals.Sources:(2) - http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu...(3) - http://www.amprogress.org...;

4d38532b-2019-04-18T18:44:12Z-00003-000

The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal. Some people ask 'why should marijuana be legalized?" but we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?" From a philosophical point of view, individuals deserve the right to make choices for themselves. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individuals actions endanger someone else. This does not apply to marijuana, since the individual who chooses to use marijuana does so according to his or her own free will. The government also may have a right to limit individual actions if the actions pose a significant threat to the individual. But this argument does not logically apply to marijuana because marijuana is far less dangerous than some drugs which are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco The second important reason that marijuana should be legal is that it would save our government lots of money. In the United States, all levels of government (federal, state, and local authorities) participate in the "War on Drugs." We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes. The third major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the "forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth). One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools. Why? Because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. If our goal is to reduce drug consumption, then we should focus on open and honest programs to educate youth, regulation to keep drugs away from kids, and treatment programs for people with drug problems. But the current prohibition scheme does not allow such reasonable approaches to marijuana; instead we are stuck with 'DARE' police officers spreading lies about drugs in schools, and policies that result in jail time rather than treatment for people with drug problems. We tried prohibition with alcohol, and that failed miserably. We should be able to learn our lesson and stop repeating the same mistake There are plenty of other reasons why marijuana should be legal. Just to name a few: Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate appetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal.

42af9318-2019-04-18T14:20:18Z-00005-000

I see no reason it should be banned in a free society