Subset (3)

corpus · 5.75k rows

Split (1)

train · 5.75k rows

_id stringlengths 37 39	text stringlengths 3 37.1k
fbf5301a-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00000-000	During this presentation and debate I have attempted not to speak for homosexuals, but instead let them speak to you and in their own words. The undercover video that I provided did precisely that " it allowed homosexuals to speak, in their own words, and in an environment in which they did not feel the need to be guarded. If you have not already done so I would urge you to do so. It is worth giving the link again; https://www.youtube.com... Simple questions were asked to a good cross section of homosexuals in a non- confrontational manner. This could easily be any sampling of homosexuals at any gay bar on a weekend. There is no reason to believe those homosexuals are unique. I would strongly suggest that it"s more plausible that this would be representative of the reactions and responses you would get if this were done in any gay bar or club in the country, and that the homosexuals in that video are not special cases at all. I watched it for research purposes, and by the end it was clear to me that the vast majority of the homosexuals in it had been victims of child molestation and rape between the ages of 2-12. Almost every one of them recounted an early sexual experience with an adult male. Many when asked said that until the violation they had never considered themselves to have an attraction toward men. They clearly state that the psyche developed only after the abuse. Naturally, as is the case with those who have been abused, some were confused as to the very fact that yes, they HAD been abused. Some victims of abuse develop a strange defence of the abuser. Most of the respondents spoke clearly and candidly. Even though those first experiences happened to them a long time ago, you can sense v easily that they recount them with bitterness and anger. If there was true merit to being "born gay" then why would it take the molestation and rape of a male child to act as a catalyst much of the time? Are we to believe that this early molestation simply had zero effect at all on the overall and sexual psyche of the child? That it would not indeed shape his outlook on relations, love and sex? Are we to dismiss the homosexuals themselves who bravely recount their experiences and who state they did not harbour sexual attraction to males until they violations? While it may be difficult to provide precise and all- inclusive data as to precisely what % of homosexuals were molested by an older male as a child (it"s not something many might want to admit), I would suggest any figures we do find would be on the conservative side. Notwithstanding, in the words of homosexuals themselves and this data, it should be absolutely clear that a significant % of homosexuals experienced abuse by an older male when a child. **** "Dr"s. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse analysed data from what is probably the best survey of sexual behaviour in America. They write, "Experience of sexual abuse as a child, in other words, more than tripled the likelihood of later reporting homosexual orientation." They continue, "Other studies have reported the same trend." (4) In 1995, Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, cited two different studies about high rates of sexual abuse in homosexual and bisexual men. He writes: "Nevertheless, it is disturbing to find that although under 4 percent of boys are molested by men, a recent major study found that the rate of childhood molestation by men among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times that (35 percent). It is also notable that 75 percent of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of sixteen, as compared to 22 percent of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual experience"" Dr. Dean Byrd has a Ph.D. in psychology, and post doctorate degrees in Child and Family Psychology and Behavioural Medicine. Now in his fourth decade of teaching, research and practice, he has provided psychological care for at least 400 men who have been distressed by their unwanted homosexual attractions. He concurs that childhood sexual abuse is a significant issue for many men with same-sex attractions, and points to even more studies that demonstrate this connection. He also notes that the homosexually-identified men often report earlier ages for their first sexual experience, but often don"t consider this abuse: There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 pe cent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men. What"s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7. http://www.citizenlink.com... One older homosexual in the undercover video admitted his youngest victim was 12yrs of age, before going on to recount how he was sexually abused by men at around that age and how from that point on, he was left both angry and with a whole new sexual identity. Perhaps when you take all of this into consideration, it is hardly surprising at all why the powerful and well- funded homosexual lobbyists should strive to have homosexuality removed from the DSM. After all, if it were still listed on the DSM today then the research could only finally arrive at the conclusion that in a disproportionate number of cases, abuse by an older male when they were a child was the pathogen that created the pathology. Such conclusions and routes would not suit politically connected and influential homosexuals. We have heard the words of leading British "gay activist" Peter Tatchell, who is a homosexual of course, and has been around homosexuals his whole life. Here are his words again; "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that is all. Predisposition and determination are two different things. If heterosexually and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." And on the subject of Peter Tatchell, here is what he wrote to the Guardian in 1997. This wasn"t stated off the cuff. These were his own considered words that he took time to read before sending; In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about "boy-love," calling the work "courageous," before writing: "The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends " gay and straight, male and female " had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful" https://en.wikipedia.org... These words would, I am sure, put any rational person off from allowing their son to spend any time alone with such a person. As with abusers, you can see the language of justification in what he writes, and how he even goes as far as to claim the victims like it. Children aged NINE. Those are his thoughts and words, not my take on them. Doesn"t it dovetail so very well with the accounts and data of homosexuals being subjected to molestation by adult males as I"ve covered in depth? Isn"t it telling that rather than distance themselves and condemn Tatchell for those words, that to this day he is perceived by them as a hero by LGBT? They even give him the nick name of Saint Peter Tatchell. These are adult homosexuals who clearly see nothing wrong in sexual contact with male children and in their own words. Is male to male molestation the psychological catalyst in all cases? Most likely not. But I would be confident in saying that child abuse by an older male is the catalyst in many cases and perhaps even more than we openly know about. This cannot be denied nor can it be dismissed. What then of those who went through their childhood years with zero molestation or sexual contact with an older male? How do we explain that? I"d suggest that in those cases other triggers have been involved. Triggers that were perhaps absent of the molestation. This would be consistent with other psychological conditions, such as borderline personality disorder. BPD is said to be rooted in some level of childhood abandonment and yet with some who have it do so with no apparent abandonment. Some other factors must have been at play that evoked the pathology. By the same token, the % of adult male homosexuals with zero sexual contact as a minor can likely also be explain by a plethora of other child developmental factors. But in many cases it does appear that homosexuality is a psychological and pathological reaction to early sexualisation at the hands of an older male. It would also make sense why homosexuals have greater levels of drug misuse and other self- destructive behaviours, since they are actually victims of an early physical and psychological attack. The evidence that homosexuality is rooted in the psychological and not the genetic is powerful and seductive. Do heterosexuals give birth to "gay babies"? If so then only the very tiniest % of babies (perhaps 2%) would be "gay babies", and a great many of those must apparently rely on sexual abuse as a child to truly bring out their supposedly "natural" homosexuality. It may be possible that genetics and biology can be altered by what we ingest into our system though, what we eat and drink. Or at least certain chemicals in certain things. There is evidence for there being a great deal of estrogen mimickers in food and even in the water supply. I would not rule out that in some cases this could cause hormonal changes that would perhaps see a male child develop more effeminately if not a homosexual per se. http://www.healthline.com... http://www.alternet.org... http://www.nbcnews.com... However, although that would be interesting to debate in its own right, I stand by my opening position. Homosexuality is grounded in the psychological.
30bc78ec-2019-04-18T17:52:08Z-00003-000	To start off my argument, I would like everyone to look at that number (pertaining to the number of Americans that do not have what is considered "broadband" internet). The average broadband speed is, at minimum, roughly around 5-6mbs, which stands for "megabytes per second". 100,000,000 Americans do NOT have this speed, which is absolutely appalling. One reason is because of the companies that offer broadband are not wanting to come down the individual's road. A reasonable excuse for someone who lives a good mile or so from the nearest cable, but even that is absurd. We live in a technology-driven world. How is one supposed to be apart of this new society when he/she does not have the necessities? In a world where South Korea is about to release a 1GB download/1GB upload speed, companies need to provide the minimum 5mb package. Also, one could say that it is becoming a right to have it. How is one supposed to get an education online when they don't have the option to do so in the privacy of their own home? Colleges, school, and education are becoming popular online and students must have sufficient internet access to participate in those activities. I am not forcing the companies to come down. It's practical. It is feasible. How can people get television and even land-line, but not Internet? I sit so hard to spend an extra million to get the job done when they have $600 million in their free amounts to spend at the end of the year. Companies can save money by placing the lines over phone-lines and cables. Mega wifi hot-spots are also an option that could be taken into consideration. Placing them to be provided in every city is feasible. I would like to propose that not having fundamental access to internet violates both the First and Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We as Americans have a natural right to the world around us. A right to have fun; A right to learn; A right to speak on what one loves, like we are doing today. How are we supposed to be informed (assuming that newspapers and mail are becoming outdated and electronic mail and words are becoming current) when we do not have our information? I am not proposing an excessive amount of download speeds so that people can upload pictures to Facebook faster. I am saying that EVERYONE deserves the right to what they are entitled to, and I believe that internet is becoming implied for everyone to have with the Constitution backing up my claims. . http://www.wiscnews.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://itsaboutthestory.wordpress.com...
67d38d83-2019-04-18T18:42:34Z-00006-000	Thanks for the debate. I noticed that wording of the resolution could give him an unfair advantage, but I looked over another debate he had on this issue, and he did not follow up on it. So I felt safe accepting.I await Pro's opening argument.
4d05768c-2019-04-18T18:42:05Z-00002-000	The motion is simple: Does organised religion have a place in a postmodern society? I’d say yes: The history books. The psychology books. Probably still in philosophy books. But as a tangible entity in a post-modern society? No. My argument is that a) the Church's earthly roles have been made redundant by social enterprises because of i) Social enterprises cost less on the economy/taxes and ii) are indiscriminate and iii) have a larger efficiency. If a is true, and the assumption of b, that in a capitalist society, the inefficient businesses are removed, then conclusion c, that social enterprises replacing religion is a positive move forwards, and its practical role has disappeared. The first question to ask is what a postmodern society is. Some say it came as early as 1492, when Christopher Columbus petitioned Queen Isabel to find an eastern trade route to Japan, leading to the new world, took place. Others say it came at the end of The Quest for the New World (around the 1700s) or when countries started to claim independence (1750s onwards), others still say it was the Renaissance, or 1914, or 1945. But whether it was colonialist changes, military changes, or cultural changes that dictated when we made a change into a postmodern society, an extraordinarily large number of cultural historians agree with the statement that we live in a postmodern society; it is not a point of contention because it is so widely accepted. Also, there is the definition of social enterprise. As according to http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk..., "Social enterprises are businesses trading for social and environmental purposes. Many commercial businesses would consider themselves to have social objectives, but social enterprises are distinctive because their social and/or environmental purpose is absolutely central to what they do - their profits are reinvested to sustain and further their mission for positive change.". I shall accept this definition, as it hold more weight than, say, the common usage definition of Merriam-Webster, and this definition is the legal & technical definition. The first point of contention is that the use of money in the Church is inefficient. Let’s be honest here: The church is a business. Not a business in the profit driven sense, but a social enterprise. A social enterprise is a business that’s main aim is not monetarily driven; that is, it does not set out to make a profit, make “money”. It’s main aim is to have a social impact on the community, and to make the community better. Examples include 15, a restaurant set up by famous British chef Jamie Oliver. It provides jobs to teenagers that cannot get employed due to lack of skills and prison sentences, and lets them learn a trade. Now, I would say that this is a worthwhile cause. This is a niche that is not filled by many communities, at least, definitely not the Church. It is worthwhile. But most importantly, it is profitable. It reinvests its profit back into the business to expand and help others, but it is self-sustaining. Now, let’s look at Organised Religion. More specifically, because it is the largest target, and most popular, and one that we are all familiar with, let’s talk about the inefficiency of the Church. I think the words said by AMI Church Consulting Services, on amiccs.com, says it best : You can probably save 40-60% on your church building plans. I can quote them saying this, word foor word : Here is a realistic example. The church gets a quote on church architectural services for a 10,000sf building. The cost for your church building plans are quoted at $70,000. Using a pre-designed plan, modified to your needs and local building codes, and sealed by a licensed architect, the cost could easily be be less than $35,000. This is a company saying that they can easily cut in half your costs, without any sacrifice. If they could do that on the deficit… Now, is Organised religion discriminate against specific groups? I am not saying that religion is racist or anything like that (although I could make that point), the fact is, they do not help people of different religions:Matthew 10:3 -- These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans, but go to the lost sheep of the Israelites." Meaning, in the context, do not focus on those outside your faith, but on those inside it who are lost. This is just one of the quotes from the Bible, and I feel I could find more if you wish, but this is one that always struck out to me because of its meaning that non-christians are "lost". Quran -- http://www.hidaya.org...;http://quran.com...;[Charity is] for the poor who have been restricted for the cause of Allah...Also, Al-Qur'an 9:60 may be of use. Finally, are social enterprises more efficient? This is not a difficult point to make. Even though religious institutes are exempt to more taxes, many of the institutions are failing, with costs of approximately 200k a year in churches : http://stcletusparish.com...; in this report, you may find the lines: Financially, we finished the fiscal year with expenses exceeding revenues by only $30,000. This was due to the diligent efforts of our parish staff maintaining our expense, but more importantly, we were able to achieve these results with the generosity and stewardship of our parishioners... If we look at this, we can see that this church sees losing 30k a year is a great success. Amazing success, I'd say. Anyway, I feel this proves my point of inefficiency with organised religion. It also discriminates against certain audiences, making its effectiveness less, and therefore its use is no longer required. Thank you.
cf842da8-2019-04-18T17:08:08Z-00007-000	School uniforms are expensive to some middle and lower class citizens. They are not comfortable to children and can be hard for them to learn. Kids have the right to wear whatever they want, and what is comfortable form them to learn. Having kids all wear the same thing can make a harmful envirement for kids to learn. Every child is different in there own way.
84367233-2019-04-18T17:20:27Z-00001-000	Since Con has not provided any rebuttals, I will provide my third argument:Democratic Ideals PromotedTaking on this action of making voting compulsory would be only asking those who take advantage of the democracy to put in their work for the same democracy. We will be asking those citizens who wish not to go to a polling station to complete their duty. Additionally, the fact that the registered voters would have an incentive to go to vote in the election year, they will be forced to keep up with the parties and the leaders. If they have to go to the polling station, they will think, why not just vote for someone. This thought will increase the number of people who would place a legit vote and would be voting for what they believe.I would like to extend this argument, but seeing that Con has yet not provided rebuttals to my last two and has not strengthened Con's own arguments, I will delay the extension of this argument.
abe4ddc0-2019-04-18T16:27:49Z-00006-000	Im sorry. I just don't like the fact that you don't want this. The death penalty is good because what prison would want a crazy dude in the prison doing stupid things. Plus if I was somebody that killed and had life in prison id be upset. Why? I wouldn't wanna live my life in front of bars. id wanna die.
abe4ddc0-2019-04-18T16:27:49Z-00007-000	I do, however, want to warn him of something before we begin debating. One specific rule I have implemented states that "[p]roper spelling and grammar will be used. " My opponent has already broken a crucial rule. I will give my opponent an opportunity to better himself. I will, however, continue doing what I do best: debating. Main ArgumentI will put aside political affiliation and focus on the facts. Before I begin, however, I would like to state my philosophy: It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly "kill and be killed. " Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice. I am a firm believer in the principle of democracy. Deathpenaltyinfo. org states:Support for the death penalty has fallen sharply by 23 percentage points since 1996, reaching its lowest level in almost two decades, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. The 2013 poll also found a 10 point drop in just the last 2 years in respondents who say they "strongly favor" the death penalty, from 28% to 18%. The percentage of Americans who say they oppose the death penalty has risen to 37%. In 2011, Pew asked respondents about the reasons behind their views on the death penalty, finding that the top two reasons for opposition to capital punishment were the imperfect nature of the justice system and a belief that the death penalty is immoral. The drop in public support coincides with an overall decline in use of the death penalty during the same time period, with both death sentences and executions falling dramatically since the 1990s. Six states have repealed the death penalty in the last six years, and three governors have recently imposed moratoriums on executions. Don't you believe in democracy? Don't you believe in the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The death penalty is a direct violation of the rights acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence. If you are at all human, you will understand that all of us have basic rights. If you at all empathize with your fellow members of humankind, you will acknowledge the fact that the death penalty does not serve true justice; it serves injustice. Often, innocent people who have never committed a wrong are put to death because of a mistrial. Can you let this pass? I say no. And even when the person has committed murder or another hideous crime, the death penalty is out of the question. Life in prison is the suitable punishment. I have a challenge for you: refute my points. MLA Citation "National Polls and Studies. "DPIC. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...;.
224229b9-2019-04-18T14:58:07Z-00004-000	CONTENTION ONE: DEATHThe mortality rate for smokers in the United States is three times higher nonsmokers. Cigarettes are estimated to be the cause of 20% of deaths in the United States, every year, or 480,000 deaths [1].Cigarettes have no major redeeming health benefits.Syllogism:P1: Things that cause death without major redeeming health benefits should be illegal.P2: Cigarettes cause death without major redeeming health benefits.C1: Cigarettes should be illegal.CONTENTION TWO: "CIGARETS"So-called "cigarets" do not exist. I have never heard of them. (Cigarettes, on the other hand, are pure evil.)We should ban all imaginary things.Imagine if unicorns started popping up around the United States. People would probably get impaled or something. And they'd probably be smoking some cigarets as they brutally murdered schoolchildren, with carrots.Thus, we must ban unicorns and "cigarets".REFERENCES[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;
c886388e-2019-04-18T17:21:56Z-00008-000	Pretty simple. Marijuana should be legal. Think you can prove me wrong?
1ffa3b2c-2019-04-18T19:14:08Z-00004-000	In a 1974 a report ascribing 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and whooping cough epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically. The reason I supply this evidence is to prove that immunizations do not need to be compulsory to have affective widespread result of getting vaccinated. Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I negate. Definitions and observations: Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. Public health is community health. (MedTerms Dictionary.com) Concerns: Matters that engage attention, interest, and care (Random House Dictionary, 2009) Justify: To prove to be just or right. (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996) Compulsory: Required and mandated by law. Obligatory (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996) Immunization: Treatment of an organism for the purpose of making it immune to subsequent attack by a particular pathogen, typically achieved by introducing the organism to the living or dead pathogen. OBSEVATION 1: For the context of this debate, the Neg does not have to prove that all immunizations are bad, and that immunizations are not affective, just that immunization should never be made compulsory. My core value is Justice. Justice, according to the Thomas Aquinas is defined as giving each their due. My criterion is Governmental Legitimacy through preserving Natural Rights. Governmental legitimacy is the preferred criterion in the round for three reasons. First, government is the only entity with the right to compel individuals to behave in specific ways--in this case, to be immunized. Giving this power to any other entity justifies community witch hunts, lynch mobs, and vigilante justice. Second, public health is within the government's purview because all questions of overall community welfare must be addressed by the government. This idea stems from social contract theory. Third, granting any other entity the right to compel individuals to get immunized would erode governmental authority and encourage anarchy. CONTENTION 1: A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE NATURAL RIGHTS. Channing explains, (The Collected Works of William Channing, as quoted in Reflections in American Political Thought, 1973, p. 92), "Human rights, however, are not to be so reasoned away. They belong ... to man as a moral being, and nothing can divest him of them but the destruction of his nature. They are not to be given up to society as a prey. On the contrary, the great end of civil society is to secure them. The great end of government is to repress all wrong. Its highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful, so that the most obscure human being may enjoy his rights in peace." CONTENTION 2: NATURAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SACRIFICED FOR THE 'GREATER GOOD.' Rawls explains in A Theory of Justice, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good enjoyed by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal liberty are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." CONTENTION 3: COMPULSORY VACCINATION VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Calandrillo explains in the University of Michigan Journal of Legal Reform, "In addition to the potential safety risks associated with immunizations, anti-vaccinationists raise the classic American values of freedom and individualism as grounds for their objections to compulsory vaccination laws. Groups opposed to government interference in personal lives vociferously argue that no one, especially not the state, can dictate what they can do with their body (or their child's body for that matter). Mandatory vaccination is therefore an unwarranted interference with basic human autonomy and liberty. In fact, nearly 4 out of 5 websites opposing vaccination argue that current U.S. immunization laws are a violation of civil liberties. In particular, many cite newly created electronic vaccine registries as an example of "Big Brother" intruding into private lives. Antivaccinationists further characterize public health authorities as abusive, untrustworthy and paternalistic. Resisting forced immunization, on the other hand, is equated with the noble fight against government oppression. CONTENTION 4: COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO GET VACCINATED VIOLATES A GOVERNMENTS LEGITIMACY. Dr. Edward Younkins of Wheeling Jesuit University explains, "New conceptions of sovereignty and politics have recently become popular with the result that people have increasingly come to regard the government as a source of rights rather than as a defender of pre-existing individual rights. The assumption of this new view is that a right is not simply a freedom to do a certain thing, but is the privilege of forcing others to take positive actions to provide some perceived entitlement. If this were true, a right would not be seen as a freedom but rather as a power. To the founders, a right was a moral principle or imperative defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. Such a right represents a man's absolute power to seek an end. Under this process view of rights, the only duty imposed on others by such rights is the negative duty of forbearance – of not interfering with that to which a person has a right. If a person has a right to perform a certain activity, then others have the obligation not to interfere with that activity. It follows that there are no group rights – only individual rights. Group rights are arbitrary and imply special interests. The state is not involved in the creation of rights – it mainly exists to protect an individual's natural rights. Concerned with protecting the self-directedness of individuals, rights are a metanormative concept that provides law with a moral underpinning. Natural rights impose a negative obligation – the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty. Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another with respect to his life, liberty, or possessions. It is illegitimate to use coercion against a man who does not first undertake the use of force. The role of government is to protect man's natural rights through the use of force, but only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use.
8d4f3bb7-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00005-000	I am against raising the minimum wage, and believe it will not help our economy or even the workers getting higher pay in the long run. The following is my initial argument. I look forward to reading the opposing argument. 1)Raising the minimum wage is not efficient, if companies have to pay their workers more money, then they will have to either cut back on everyone"s hours or lay some people off. Less workers means less production which does not help the growth of an economy. 2)Now that people are making more money, they will naturally be able to afford more things (in the short run) making demand for generally every product go up. According to the law of supply and demand, when demand goes up the price must go up (because of limited amount of supply). This causes inflation. 3)Now let"s put a very simple example with this" say a worker makes $7.50 an hour and a given item costs $1" but minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour so now every worker who bought one of that given item a week can now afford to buy 2 a week and at least half of them do, so demand goes up for that item. Because the producers of this given item can only produce so much of this item a week (let"s keep the example small and simple and say they can produce 100 units a week) but now there is a demand for 200 a week, because there is a high demand they raise the price to $2" now that is the same fraction of the worker"s wage before minimum wage was raised, so now again, they can only afford one of that item a week, therefore making their raise pointless.
70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00007-000	Pros CasePoint A: Man-Made Global Warming existsSub 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 Man-Made Global warming 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: man-made global warming is the primary cause of Global WarmingSub 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. Scientific research has been done by a countless number of experts, and they have all come to a similar agreement. Humanity is the primary cause of global warming. To challenge this claim is to challenge the authority of research giants such as NASA. Environmental scientists are the authority on this subject, and they agree with the Pro. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [global warming] 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 global warming. Point C: The effects of global warming are extreme. 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: man-made global warming 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)Man-made global warming 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 global warming 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, man-made global warming 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 man-made global warming could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that man-made global warming 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 Human lives are at stake, and even the economies of the world are at stake. SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that man-made global warming is indeed real. Furthermore, the effects of man-made global warming 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 man-made global warming. 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://www.nbcnews.com...11. . http://climate.nasa.gov...;
70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00005-000	RebuttalsThe Greenhouse potential of CO2This is actually an excellent point made by my opponent. There are two problems with it, though. A) Man realeases many other, potent, greenhouse gases. B) Man contributes to global warming in more ways than just producing greenhouse gases. (A) The greenhouse gamut of gasesMan produces more than just CO2 grenhouse gases. Man is also directly responsible for CH4 (methane) emissions, N20 (Nitrous Oxide) emissions, and Chlorofluorocarbons ("F" Gases). Here is a chart depicting the full impact of these gases. • Carbon dioxide (CO2). Accounts for around three-quarters of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. The key source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, though deforestation is also a very significant contributor. • Methane (CH4). Accounts for around 14% of the impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially livestock and rice fields), fossil fuel extraction and the decay of organic waste in landfill sites. Methane doesn't persist in the atmosphere as long as CO2, though its warming effect is much more potent for each gram of gas released. • Nitrous oxide (N2O). Accounts for around 8% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially nitrogen-fertilised soils and livestock waste) and industrial processes. Nitrous oxide is even more potent per gram than methane. • Fluorinated gases ("F gases"). Account for around 1% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources are industrial processes. F-gases are even more potent per gram than nitrous oxide. (1) The emissions for CO2 from man alone may not account for the upward trend, but it is certainly not natural cycles. National Geographic writes, "Scientists have spent decades figuring out what is causing global warming. They've looked at the natural cycles and events that are known to influence climate. But the amount and pattern of warming that's been measured can't be explained by these factors alone. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. " (2)Man produces quite a bit of methane gases as well. Every methane molecule has 20 times the greenhouse potential of CO2 (2). Man actually produces 50-100 million tonnes of methane per year. This is due to the massive increase of two forms of agriculture: Beef and rice. The digestive systems of cows happen to produce a sizeable amount of methane, and rice paddies produce quite a bit as well. (3)To give these combined gases some perspective, imagine that all human gases were measured relative to CO2. Since 1990 alone, we, humanity, have increased our GHG emissions by the equivalent of 6 Gigatons of CO2, a 20% increase. (2)(B) Man contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly, and indirectly. The direct method in which man contributes to the greenhouse effect is through direct emissions of greenhouse gases. The indirect method, though, is limiting the earths ability to curb GHGs presence in our atmosphere. The two most notable effects are deforestation and oceanic pollution. I. DeforestationThe most effective way in which the earth curbs the amount of GHGs produced (specifically, CO2) is through the forests of the earth. The earths forests converts CO2 into O2 and glucose, thus reducing the amount of GHGs present in the atmosphere. Deforestation practices, however, have significantly reduced the earths ability to reduce the presence of CO2. "By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation. " (4)This results in a much higher quantity of CO2 present in the atmosphere that is a result of mans interference with the environment. II. Pollution of the OceanThe ocean is also a fairly major player in the environment, and GHGs. The ocean naturalyl absorbs GHGs and reduces their concentration. Warming the environment, though, significantly reduces the oceans ability to combat the increase of GHGs. "There’s an important relationship between the atmosphere and our oceans, which is out of balance due to climate change pollution. As oceans warm, they lose their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, causing them to become 'acidified. '" (5). SummaryEven if CO2 initially has very little effect on the enironvment, we can see that the initial effects can quickly spiral out of control and "snowball" into a much more severe effect. Man produces many more GHGs than through simple CO2 emissions. The way in which we cause the greenhouse effect is complex, but almost assuradly the most major cause of modern global warming, as is the scientific census (see Point B, Sub-point 1). Nature and Global Warming/The global warming cycle. Up until about 1950 (where many of my opponents graphs end) the warming period was totally accounted for by natual causes. It wasn't until after then that we began to realize that natual cycles cannot account for modern global warming. Here is a chart illustrating CO2 emissions in PPMs from NASA. As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever. Furthermore, my Point B Subpoint 1 argument shows that the environmental scientific community is in total agreement: Natural cycles simply do not account for modern global warming. The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced"SummaryThere are countless sources in my R1 argument, and in this argument, that show that the only explanation for the massive upward trend in global average temperatures is that humanity is significantly exacerbating the natural cycle, causing a warming cycle more extreme than any warming cycles in history. I reiterate, Natual Cycles cannot account for modern global warming, and environmental scientists are all in agreement over this point. Via GHG emissions-both directly and indirectly- of all kinds (more than just CO2), man has significantly contributed to the general upward trend of global average temperatures. Sources1. . http://www.theguardian.com...2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...;3. . http://www.ghgonline.org...4. . http://www.scientificamerican.com...;5. . http://www.takepart.com...;
bb920a73-2019-04-18T17:15:02Z-00002-000	Assertion 1 There are two problems here. The first is that the majority is more important than minorities in a democracy. A democracy is about doing what most of the people want to do, not what a few people want to do. While I do agree that it is bad to oppress minorities, the president should be more focused on what is better for everyone. The other problem is that the EC actually reduces the value of the minorities" votes. As I said in the last round, the votes of people in large states, where Con claims there is a high minority percent, actually count for less than those in smaller states. In this case, the minorities would actually be under-represented. Now, I realize that this might sound like a contradiction of my second point, but the difference lies in the size of the minorities. The EC causes candidates to focus much more on groups like Cuban immigrants and poor orange farmers in Florida (1) than they should, whereas the African American, Hispanic, and other such minorities are large enough to have some power in a popular election. Assertion 2 Con has two main arguments here. The first is that some states would lower the voting age. Because this is a democracy, it is not a bad thing to have more voices and more votes. If there was a problem with this though, the federal government could make a law setting an official national voting age. Also, there would probably not be very many people under 18 that came out to vote because voter turnout % drops as you look at younger groups. (2) Con"s other argument is that candidates will try to increase voter turnout. Historically, an increased voter turnout has been a good thing, so I don"t see what the problem is. A state where 100% of the voters show up and vote for one candidate should not have the same weight as a state where 50% of the voters show up and are evenly split. Also, this Trent England guy that Con is getting info from is not a legitimate source. The website he got it from is a debate/opinion site like DDO, so there is no reason to believe him. Also, the Freedom Foundation that he is a part of is a volunteer organization to "help the next generation". (3) This gives him no authority on the subject. Now onto the defense of my arguments. The way that the EC was intended to work was meant for the way things were when it was created. My opponent says that people still had to vote, but this can be deceiving. According to what they originally wrote "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting". The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress. " (4) This means that the legislature got to choose how the electors were chosen, often times choosing them themselves. Also, the electors where to vote for who they believed should be president, not necessarily what the people wanted. Finally, as I said last round, sending the election to congress means the Senate decides, which is not proportional to what the people want. My opponent gives no substantial argument against my second point. He only says "if we switch to a popular vote the minority vote will not exist anymore and they will not be able to make their interests be satisfied". Unless he can justify this or support it somehow, then my argument still stands. On my third argument, my opponent seems to miss the point. First, he says that taking away the EC will remove all value from Wyoming. This is not necessarily a bad thing because each individual person will have the same value and the value of each vote is more important than the value of each state. My opponent completely skipped my argument about a person"s population counting for a candidate that they don"t like and the possibility of the EC vote going against the popular vote.
bb920a73-2019-04-18T17:15:02Z-00003-000	I"d like to start off this debate with a quote from a . http://www.usnews.com... article entitled "The Electoral College Serves the Interests of All People" by Trent England, the vice president of policy at Freedom Foundation, "Americans are fortunate that through debate and compromise, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College. While it doesn't work exactly as the founding generation thought it might, it probably works better than they could have imagined. It doesn't tip the scales in favor of Democrats or Republicans"but instead serves the interests all the people. " Assertion 1:- Gives minorities a voice in the vote The Electoral College gives fair chances to racial minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics. Since these minorities tend to live in larger cities "of the bigger states, their votes are important in tilting all the electoral votes of their state, thus encouraging candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes. (1)" This makes all the races equally important to the candidate and he will look into minority interests. If there is no Electoral College candidates will only focus on the interests of the majority (White people) and minority needs won"t be satisfied. Assertion 2:- Might cause unfair play "A purely popular vote would encourage some states (particularly one-party states) to change their voting requirements to increase that state"s influence nationwide. For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or 16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote. (1)" "The benefits of the Electoral College come from the need to win state-by-state. This means candidates can't just go to their strongholds and drive up turnout"or stuff ballot boxes. The Electoral College makes candidates go to the most evenly divided parts of our country to make their case to those voters. Over time, this has made American political parties less extreme and more inclusive than they would have been without the Electoral College," says Trent England. Stuffing ballot boxes (putting in "extra votes") won"t work in the EC because states are designated a certain amount of points. Putting it all on one region or state won"t do much in the EC because you need the help of multiple states to win. Now, on to my refutations: My opponent"s 1st point about the EC being outdated makes no sense since the people still had to vote to the same sort of pledged electors that we do today making the argument about communication senseless since the circumstances for both the popular vote and the EC the same. The real reason why the EC was created was to protect the rights of the small states and encourage "moderation, compromise and coalition building. (3)" My opponent"s 2nd point states that minority groups are favored because of the EC. It is true that minorities get a bit more attention than they deserve, but if we switch to a popular vote the minority vote will not exist anymore and they will not be able to make their interests be satisfied. In the EC however, both Whites and minorities have a fair say and are able to get what they want. My opponent"s 3rd point is about haw votes disproportionate from area to area. It"s true that in the EC some states are made more important than others but if there is no EC Wyoming gets almost a zero value while candidates start doing the stuff mentioned in my second assertion in big states. Also, we should remember what will happen to minorities. Voters, I have proven that the EC is here to stay; vote con. Sources: (1). http://www.cato.org... (2). http://www.usnews.com... (3). http://www.aim.org...
3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00006-000	I understand and respect your arguments. In response to your question regarding age, yes I do believe a girl should wait until the age of eighteen to be able to obtain birth control. I understand your point that you believe a girl who wants to obtain birth control is already sexually active, however I believe that in some cases the lack of birth control will keep them from becoming sexually active and possibly prevent a mistake from happening. By allowing a young girl of any age to obtain birth control with no knowledge to their parents, it is making it easy for young girls to make mistakes that they may be too immature to recognize at the time.
3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00007-000	I understand your side, and I agree that girls should be able to talk to their parents about obtaining birth control. However, in cases where a parent would not let his or her child obtain birth control, I believe a young woman should be able to receive it herself. If a young woman is interested in obtaining birth control, then chances are she has been or will be sexually active soon, with or without her parents' consent. If she is allowed to get birth control, then the risk of becoming pregnant is decreased significantly, a conclusion that I believe should be a young woman's own right. If you believe that someone needs parental consent, what age do they no longer need it, 18?
3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00008-000	I respect your view on the topic however I believe parental consent should be required when a minor wants to obtain birth control. A child under the age of 18 isn't allowed to vote, some don't even have a license however they are engaging in an act that can bring a whole new person to the world. Maturity is a large factor in the topic of birth control. Often, girls believe that they should get birth control behind their parent's backs to avoid awkward conversation or even disappointment. However, what girls fail to see is that their parents are there to help them and might surprise them and support their decision to get birth control.
3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00009-000	I believe that birth control should be allowed to be obtained without parental consent. When a girl is requesting to use birth control, she is being mature and responsible and it is her own right, not her parents, to make the decision to have sex or not. If someone is making the decision to have sex, they should be mature enough to make the decision to be safe about it. Further more, most teens would have sex if they want to regardless if they have protection or not, so it is better to be safe than sorry.
3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00000-000	I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.
e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00001-000	I am Sorry for my Absense I lost track of the day count(I know a bad excuse but a true one) First of all My opponent proposed no criterion or core value and so mine are seen to stand. First point. My opponent gives the Cannibals and the missionary example. This is irrelevant because the cannibals are not necessarily felons and second in such a situation disfranchisement wouldn't exist because there are no laws. there is also no evidence the vote would be in favor of the missionary. 2nd: the only thing that makes the citizen of a democratic government different from a despotic one is the right to vote. Furthermore this debate does not concern what is currently being done but as to what we should do. So the constitution is irrelevant. re-build my own case (refutation of Marshall quote) I am Not suggesting they are equal but merely they get representation. If we disenfranchisethem we are turning what was once a two way street into a one way street. They are also paying or have paid there debt and further punishment hinders the rehabilitative efforts of society. Also the recidivism point is merely speculation without factual evidence and therefore is irrelevant. 2nd contention The point proposed by my opponent it simply un-democratic. It is turning towards Oligarchy which is, of course, not democratic and therefore denys justice 3rd contention My opponent is merely speculating with the recidivism rates and again therefore those statistics must be thrown out. Also if we were to include those who had not been caught we must consider all non-felons who may have commited a crime and advocate disenfranching them??? this destroys democracy not preserves it. Second the thought process used in felony and the thought process used in voting are entirely different things. Also the fact politicians would play to felons. this is infact not true, not politician would run a capmaign in prisons for the reason my opponent stated, cost. Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of the prison system is, ultimately, rehabilitation or deterrence from furhter crime. Felon disenfranchisement it nither and therefore overkill to the criminal justice system. again in a democratic society there is no such thing as a bad vote or else it would be moving away from democracy While this story is unfortunate it does not prove that felons disenfranchisement is warranted. It simply says felons ought to be punished. That is what the prison system is for and disenfranchisement does not solve the given situation. Because felons are required things of society they must be given all the rights of society and, therefore must vote. If they need government aid this is often times the fault of society for labeling them and not the fault of the felons themselves. Therefore in intrests of preserving democracy the resolution should be affirmed
e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00002-000	My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word "Continued" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.
e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00003-000	1. Suppose a missionary and four cannibals are stranded on an island. Does justice demand that the issue of what's for lunch be settled democratically, with a vote granted to each of the five residents of the island? Pro argues that democracy is the preeminent value of justice, that no one can be excluded from the society, and that fencing off any demographic, in this case the cannibal demographic, is clearly wrong. If these arguments are true, then the missionary is not only in the soup, he should be pleased that justice has prevailed. I argue that such is not the case. 2. I accept the definitions offered by Pro. I note, however, that the definition of a "right" does not tell us what is and what is not a right. Moreover, there are inevitable conflicts among rights which must be resolved. The U.S. Constitution grants no right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators "by any means." Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That limitation shows that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of citizens. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. That is stronger grounds for excluding convicted felons than the grounds for excluding resident aliens. 3. Pro cites Thurgood Marshall as evidence in supporting the proposition. Justice Marshall is a distinguished jurist who is an expert on interpreting laws. However, being highly qualified to interpret laws does not qualify one as an expert on making laws. The good justice claims that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have "fully paid their debt to society." Whether or not they have fully paid there debt is a matter of law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The "three strikes and you are out" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and "three strikes" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. It is arguable what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that "...over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.... Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics http://www.ncpa.org.... Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. The "debt to society" at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have "paid their debt," it is not at the heart of the issue. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. 4. Pro claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, "The fact that these voters were disenfranchised caused a serious lapse in democracy, and therefore did no justice. Because Disenfranchisement restricts the democratic process the resolution is a just principle." I agree that in close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. 5. Pro claims "It must be agreed that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle." I do not agree. It depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the just grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some sixteen and seventeen year olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty years old. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are, I agree, an identifiable demographic. That makes them an identifiable target for politicians, who can go to prisons to seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. (Note that the proposal is to for convicted felons to retain the right to vote, with no criteria that they even have been released from prison.) Politicians are clever enough not to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse "improving" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. Victims are citizens who worry about the health of the economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. Therefore, the fact that criminals constitute a single-issue demographic is just grounds for excluding them from voting. 6. Justice is not served by having cannibals voting democratically on the fate of missionaries. The interests of justice are best served by subordinating democracy to human rights. We should not want people whose prime interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections.
339536e6-2019-04-18T18:26:51Z-00005-000	I will be debating in favor of why gay marriage should be legal. My opponent, should they choose to take it, will argue against this. Goood luck...
8c1650a5-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00005-000	I believe that all drugs should be legalised, whether it is dangerous or not its irrelevantI challenge anyone to change my mind.The only downside I see with the legalisation of drugs is that there might be a 1-2% more drug addicts.
fbb227bb-2019-04-18T19:59:14Z-00001-000	Most of your arguments here are oversimplification. And rarely do they even explain why Abortion is wrong. You also have no proof that a fetus is a baby. As humans we have know way of knowing much less proving that a fetus is a child. At the earliest stages when almost all abortions are performed the fetus doesn't even have a heart beat and is smaller than a quarter with almost no characteristics of a child. Though I will agree that the fetus is living and is alive, it has no rights of a developed and born human being. It relies soly on the mother and without her cannot live even a few seconds. If you look up the word person in Webster's Dictionary you will find this... "pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people with the social aspect of people" A baby has none of the nature or social aspect of any person. That is why, Thought it is alive, it is not a human or person. That being said abortion cannot be counted as murder because, looking again at Webster's we find murder to mean... the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. That being said we have already determined that a fetus is not a human being because it has no aspects of humans and cannot live without the mother. Finally no one wants to be born into a family that doesn't want it, It would be a miserable life. That is why it is best in some cases to have an abortion. Abortion Should be legal, it is now healthy for the mother and does not involve murder in any way.
657ed681-2019-04-18T19:12:04Z-00001-000	After reading the republican1021's argument, I've decided to run through his main points and exploit his arguments biggest flaws, though it may be rather hard considering the 2 extremely long paragraphs and poor grammar. 1. "Due to the effects that marijuana has on the mind, the user my find themselves in a difficult situations such as they could become involved in risky sexual behavior or take part in auto crashes." The first thing that I think everybody noticed about this piece, was the poor grammar and the use of wrong words. That shouldn't matter too much anyhow, considering that anybody could take part in an auto crash. I would also like to ask the Con a question, what "risky sexual behavior" might you be referring to? If you're referring to the chance of getting an STD, this occurs in all sexual behavior, therefore calling it "risky" in relation to just the use of Marijuana is false. 2. For the second, I'm not quoting any part of the Con's argument. The Con claims that smoking Marijuana makes you less concentrated. I've never heard of anybody that's been high, and lost all concentration. He also claims that the effects of Marijuana can last up to 24 hours. Again, I've never heard of anybody that was high for 24 hours. 3. "A recent study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had alcohol in they're system." My first problem that I would like to cover, probably the only problem I will need to cover, is that this was a study of patients in a shock trauma unit at one time. A more convincing percent for you to present would be the percent of ALL fatal car crashes that are alcohol related. Since you didn't do that research, I did.. "Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol." - WebMD 4. "It is hard to find out whether marijuana alone causes cancer because many people who smoke marijuana smoke cigarettes and use other drugs." This is true, and having said that, all of this, "Tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke may work together to change the tissues lining the respiratory tract. Marijuana smoking could contribute to early development of head and neck cancer in some people. Cases of cancer, including cancer of the mouth, tongue, larynx, jaw, head, neck, and lungs have been reported in young marijuana smokers." can be thrown away. Since Tobacco smoke AND Marijuana smoke may work together to change the tissues lining the respiratory tract, this is an illegitimate argument. My case is based solely upon the use of Marijuana. 5. "Continued us of marijuana can lead to abnormal function of the lungs or airways." Continued US of Marijuana can lead to abnormal function of the lungs or airways. Well thinking back, you did say that most Marijuana users, also US tobacco. So how can we tell that the US of Marijuana is the prominent cause of the abnormal function of the lungs or airways? Last time I checked, which was at 5:14 PM today, tobacco is accused of the abnormal function of the lungs and/or airways. Actually, you said it yourself. "Marijuana and tobacco both cause many of the same breathing problems, both of them are addictive." 6. "According to one study, marijuana use by teenagers who have prior serious antisocial problems can quickly lead to dependence on the drug." Teenagers with SERIOUS antisocial problems usually have no way of accessing the drug, because of their SERIOUS antisocial problem, obviously. 7. "Researchers are not certain whether a newborn baby's health problems are caused by marijuana will continue as the child grows." Having said that, all of this can be treated as false, "Preliminary research shows that children born to mothers who used marijuana regularly during pregnancy may have trouble concentrating. Doctors advise pregnant women not to use any drugs because they might harm the growing fetus. Some scientific studies have found that babies born to marijuana users were shorter, weighed less, and had smaller head sizes than those born to mothers who did not use the drug. When a nursing mother uses marijuana, some of the THC is passed to the baby in her breast milk. This is a matter for concern, since the THC in the mother's milk is much more concentrated than that in the mother's blood." And the words like may and some show that the evidence is not 100% proven. 8. My last, "This along with the other information on how marijuana is harmful gives us another reason for not legalizing it. Marijuana should not be legalize for the safety of Americans and their health. Marijuana destroys the minds of many users. All parts of the body especially the immune system are damaged from marijuana. Marijuana can cause many of the same illnesses cigarettes cause. So in conclusion I believe that for the well being of the American people marijuana should stay illegal to ensure the safety of our future." This last piece can not be trusted because of the holes in the Con's argument. The first sentence includes a segment, "This along with other information". THIS information that the Con was referring to was proved as "not proven".
74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00004-000	This round I will focus on the economic and sociological affects that this will have on our nation. Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [1]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [2]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [12] This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [13] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future. "Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [14]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [3]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [4]. The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. [5] Contention 2: Inflation Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. [6] You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired, this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. [7] "The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. " [15] Here we can see that when the minimum wage is raised that we will see the costs will not only eliminate jobs as I have shown in my previous contention, but the burden will be placed on consumers and this harms the average household as they now have to pay more. Not more as in numerical value, but the adjusted income which takes into affect what then occurs after the raising of the minimum wage. You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. [8][9] Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. [10]According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. [11] People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [16]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [17] Sources in the Comments Section.
74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00005-000	C1: Poverty Premise 1: The ‘increased’ minimum wage reduces poverty “About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. ” [6] This is appalling. The minimum wage at the moment is extremely important in order for us to decrease poverty. Increasing the minimum wage can only continue to have the same effect. The following quotation proves that even a small minimum wage increase reduces poverty significantly. “Specifically, raising the minimum wage 10 percent (say from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent. ” [5] If an increase this low can have such a huge effect then what will a larger increase do? Evidently, it will create a decrease in the amount of poverty even more than the small increase did. “Using this as an estimate, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as many Democrats are proposing in 2014, would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million. It would also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile by $1,700. ” [5] This furthermore proves that an even larger increase would prove to be successful. Premise 2: The ‘increased’ minimum wage helps the poor “higher minimum wage is a substantial response to the challenges of inequality. Opponents of a higher minimum wage focus on the idea that it largely won’t benefit the worst off. ” [5] The quotation is supported by the following graph: “A higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income” [5] This is extremely significant because by reducing poverty we can ensure that the US can fulfill human rights to its greatest extent possible. Human rights makes direct references to having minimum wages [7]. It also makes references to reducing poverty to the furthest extent possible [8]. By not increasing minimum wages you are stopping people from receiving their human rights. This leads me on nicely to my final premise of this contention in regards to human rights. Premise 3: The current minimum wage violates human rights As introduced previously, the current minimum wage does not properly enforce laws upon poverty. The minimum wage states that we must stop poverty as much as possible without going to unreasonable measures [8]. By increasing the minimum wage this much we will see a huge economic benefit as well as a huge reduction in help for the poor and those living in poverty. The economic benefit proves that increasing the minimum wage to this extent is not unreasonable and the reduction in poverty shows that we must do this in order to bring the US to a place that meets the criteria set out by ‘Human Rights’. Conclusion We must raise the minimum wage in order for us to succeed in reducing poverty as much as possible in order for us to meet human rights criteria. Therefore the minimum wage ought to be risen in regards to this contention. C2: Productivity Higher wages result in greater worker productivity and this theory is demonstrated by a lot of as my source shows Economic Research [1]. As well as the reasoning being an increase in determination which evidently coming from higher pay raises, workers who have greater income security also see a negative correlation in poverty and financial stress, this ultimately increases work productivity as a result [2]. On to of this when they are paid more, workers are less likely to change jobs, meaning that employers have to waste less money and time attempting to attract more workers / employees, and they also receive obvious benefits such as having workers that are more experienced, long-term employees that can help develop and boost their company's overall [3]. In terms of economy, it is shown by multiple studies that businesses will see at least a $228 billion growth in revenues from a minimum wage increase due to productivity [4]. Contention 3: Religion and general agreement Christianity: Christianity is the world’s largest religion [9] at the moment including atheism and non-theistic religions. The Christian case for raising the minimum wage is relatively simple. I now quote: “While there are multiple avenues through which the poor and struggling can be supported — cash transfer programs and wage subsidies, for example, might boast the same outcomes — the delivery of income through wages, rather than benefit programs, has traditionally interested Christians because it secures relationships at the local level. In this vision of Christian society, interdependence between employers and employees is encouraged as a healthy societal bond. In other words, society becomes stronger and more cohesive as employers rely on workers for their labor, and workers rely on their labor to provide the material necessities of family life. At a broader level, the entire community also depends upon their labor for the production of goods and services needed to support society. It's a vision in which family life, community, and worship are paramount — but it takes a living wage to realize. ” [10] This case is very important since it shows that an absolutely huge amount of people support the minimum wage (ie. most Christians). This quote comes from Christian politicians so they are arguably bias however it is undeniable that one of the most notable Catholics is not going to express his opinion in a bias manner (only in favour of Christianity and the Bible): “A number of well-known Catholics, including Father John Ryan, were early advocates of a higher living wage, pressing the issue even during the era of the New Deal. In Father Ryan's 1912 dissertation A Living Wage, he argues that not only does everyone have a right to live from the bounty of creation, but that they have the right to attain it through work. ” [10,11] This argument is powerful since it derives from such a notable Catholic figure. This view is represented, expressed and agreed upon by many Christians, Catholics in particular as the quotation correctly demonstrates. General Agreement: 73% of Americans said that they’d support a minimum wage increase [10,12]! 36% when given the comment to comment said the minimum wage system is generally fair to most Americans and should be increased to make this a fairer system. 60% did not provide a comment and the remaining 4% made a comment against the rising of the minimum wage [12]. Only 4% made comments against the minimum wage! It is evident that there is huge support for the minimum wage among the US general public based on this. Conclusion I have proven with strong and well sourced evidence that the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hour and now I hand it over to my opponent for their neg. case. I affirm the resolution that the minimum wage should be raised. Over to Con! Sources [1]. http://www.nber.org...[2]http://www.worldbank.org...[3]http://www.nber.org...[4]http://www.jstor.org...[5]https://www.washingtonpost.com...[6]http://www.pewresearch.org...[7]http://www.ilo.org...[8]http://www.undp.org...[9]https://en.wikipedia.org...[10]http://theweek.com...[11]A Living Wage, Father John Ryan[12]. http://www.latimes.com...
e178e014-2019-04-18T15:51:36Z-00001-000	Arguments extended
489cc6bf-2019-04-18T18:38:57Z-00004-000	Thanks for the response. Here are some new questions: Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate? Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction? Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist? Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate? Do typical knights use helmets? Is this question visible to the naked eye? Do typical knights use horses? Do typical knights use swords? Are the three questions stated above factually correct? Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you’re really not going to contradict yourself in this debate?
2f9bf209-2019-04-18T17:39:32Z-00000-000	No, I did not miss your points. Your argument is basically that lowering the minimum wage decreases unemployment. However, it is truly based on an assumption that a business will create new jobs or more jobs all becasue they can pay employees less and their profits will remain the same. History demonstrates just the opposite. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. U.S. Steel received relief on corporate tax on profits only to not reinvest in their core business that produced the profits, steelmaking, but to buy marathon Oil. The tax cut savings went to buy a more profitable company for the shareholders, but saw increased layoffs and plant closings for the core business of US Steel.So, trusting a business to protect a workers capability to earn is not the American way. There has to be a set minimum wage to ensure an employee has liveable income. Decreasing it will push individuals off the non farm payroll numbers, and decreases tax collection capability of local, state and federal income tax revenue. As for your theory on competition, that is product focused, not employee focused. Yes, competion is good for producing quality items and encouraging investment in innovation, technology and the advancenent of goods and services. It is good for providing consumers alternatives to monopolistic practices and effects. It has nothing to do with whether a liveable wage should be set at at minimum level to ensure non exploitation of workers.Let's address some of your other points:"wages continue to go down even as unemployment improves:. Not true, let's look at recent trends. The spike in unemployment since 2008 has not seen a decline in wages even as more people do not get back on the employmnet rolls. That is all I am going to say for this round. I only had 10 minutes to respond, so I am sorry that I didn't answer everything. Thanks!
b8b216c7-2019-04-18T18:13:16Z-00005-000	"If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act." [sic]Unfortunately, those who commit violent crimes do not have the capacity to see the consequences of their actions in most cases. Implementing the death penalty would not be able to prevent heat of the moment murders, manslaughter or even some premeditated crimes. Only a few cases of First Degree murder might, might, be prevented under this plan. Unfortunately such speculation isn't strong enough to justify imposing this on all the states.State Sovereignty States in the United States of America have a right to implement certain policies on their own free from federal control. The death penalty is one of these policies. You cannot justify infringing on state sovereignty in order to impose the death penalty on all 50. People have a right to choose what kind of state government they want to run. You can't justify this breach of states rights on the words "murderers might reconsider". It's not strong enough evidence. Therefore, the death penalty should be left as a decision for each individual state to decide on.
2a95f892-2019-04-18T15:15:09Z-00004-000	Let me start this out by defining what exactly prostitution is. Prostitution is exchanging sexual relations for some kind of payment. Prostitution is occasionally referred to as "the world"s oldest profession". In the United States, prostitution is illegal across the country. This includes all three "categories" of sex work: street prostitution, brothel prostitution and escort prostitution. Only in some counties of the state of Nevada, prostitution is legal where they have regulated brothels. Al though prostitution is legal in Nevada, procuring is not. This meaning that another person cannot legally act as a "pimp" or "madam" for a sex worker. I would also like to clarify that I think sex-work should be legalized, not procuring, trafficking or any other kind of exploitation. 1)If prostitution was to be legalized, it would increase the safety for the sex-workers. First, if a prostitute was violated while working, it would be a lot easier for that person to go to the police since the profession wouldn"t be illegal. Most sex-workers wouldn"t want to go to the police in fear of being arrested and prosecuted themselves for working as a prostitute instead of being treated as the victim of whatever crime it may be. Second, legalization of prostitution would most likely make it easier for the sex-workers to avoid STDs and therefore not pass them on to their clients. Sex-workers could get regular check-ups and be helped to take the necessary precautions. Third, when you"re a legally employed person in the United States you have rights. Rights such as having a minimum wage, having freedom from discrimination and having a safe work environment " rights that sex-workers currently don"t have in the US because they can"t be legally employed (with the exception of a few counties in Nevada). 2)Legalizing prostitution would also require sex-workers to pay taxes from their payments. Paying taxes would make sex-workers contribute to society on equal footing as every other tax paying American. 3)Legalizing sex-work would give people a choice. It gives consenting adults the right to choose to engage in sexual acts. Sex-workers who are employed in legal brothels would have the freedom to choose. They wouldn"t be forced to have sex with anyone or take on clients that they don"t want to, which is very likely to happen to the illegal prostitutes working on the streets.
dc83a2d6-2019-04-18T19:53:28Z-00003-000	Well i guess ill start with one argument and see where it goes 1. The US constitution does separate church and state rendering my opponents arguments moot. So yeah thats basically it for now
5e2b575d-2019-04-18T16:32:42Z-00001-000	You said that one reason my argument is completely refuted is because I made an error with one of my sources. I can still prove it [1]. And you also said my stress argument is weak because there is too much of everything. But how does oxygen and water relate? One can be done in spare time in a classroom, the others you need to survive. You can survive without homework, in fact, you may actually feel better: even freer. But these are from both ends of the spectrum, and don"t connect. You also used my source against me. "If teachers aren't really incorporating homework into their teaching, it's unclear there is any type of benefit at all and it actually may end up hurting students." You made it sound like: "if (they) aren"t incorporating homework into teaching...end up hurting students." What was said was: "if (they) aren"t really incorporating homework into teaching...end up hurting students." There"s a huge difference there. You not recognizing the "really" in the sentence. It didn"t mean: no homework is bad. But the "really" brought the meaning to: if the homework doesn"t help in teaching students, then the homework does harm, not good. You also called me out for using a politician"s plan. You said that I just said we can cut PE and health. I said we can scrap homework and time wasting lessons and replace it with extra lessons in vital areas. The person I cite also seems to be well educated. Elizabeth Truss went to Oxford and is England"s Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare. I think she well qualified to make arguments about cutting worthless lessons and what to do with education. I used health/PE as an example. I honestly don"t think we need to hear for the thousandth time that drugs are bad, nor do I think kids need to learn how to play sports they don"t like. According to the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, only a third of high school students choose to take PE [3]. That shows they don"t want that subject because they believe it is a waste of time. Also, "the quality of physical education where it still exists, has suffered." Paula Kun, spokesperson for the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, said this [3]. Obviously PE isn"t what it used to be. And as for health, the 8+ years about no drugs and yes to abstinence wastes a good 40 or so minutes per day. And yes, independence is a vital goal of education. But asking what the equation setup was after the kid was absent for a few days isn"t extreme on a simple assignment. You draw connections from homework to exams but they are nothing alike. And I"m sure you know, being a tutor for 20 years, that you help the student in need of help, you aren"t giving them an answer. So even if you have a good source, you have an illogical argument. You would be the worst tutor in the world if you told a kid they had to learn independence. The goal of education is truly ONE thing: LEARNING. You can"t learn everything without help. If you give a 12 year old a high school biology textbook, don"t expect them to be Einsteins by the end of the year without a skilled teacher"s help. It"s no crime to do your job: and teachers teach their students. This isn"t in need of a source: because we learn to do something in school: think critically. I dismiss your use of a source on working independently because not all things involve questions being asked. By 3rd grade they know how to work independently, but help shouldn"t be thrown away. If a student is in need of help, throwing a sheet of paper in front of them WON'T FIX IT. "Homework is necessary to try out strategies learned in class by oneself, so as to see whether they have been understood." Did I not propose a simple solution for that? I think I did. That whole argument about thinking they have it correct, but they don"t does not help you. I said we should cut stupid classes and give more lessons in vital subjects, along with more help from teachers. That is a simple solution. I also said they should do those homework assignments with the extra time they get from cutting subjects, and get help from the teacher if they need it. They know they"re stuck then, so why are you still trying to use the homework as a diagnostic tool? It isn"t needed with the simplest of solutions. I said it can be a good tool to see a student"s understanding, I never said it had to be used for seeing a student"s understanding of a topic. So, no, my argument is not completely refuted. But my last thought is: why would you call me out for using opinion, when you used experience as your second paragraph of your third argument in the first round. Cut the double standard. Sources: [1]: http://www.educationviews.org... [2]: http://www.newsplex.com... [3]: http://www.ihpra.org...
173a3fe5-2019-04-18T19:55:19Z-00004-000	Gay Marriage should be legal, and churches should stop lobbying Washington to ban gay marriage. I'll allow my opponent to make the opening argument......
7f66ef82-2019-04-18T12:09:15Z-00002-000	Before I begin I have two major points:1. My opponent still has not provided any sources for any of their claims except for using my own statistics. This is grounds not to believe all of their unsupported arguments, as mentioned before (1).2. My opponent, realizing the flaws in their initial argument, has slyly contradicted themselves and in fact agrees that not all criminals should be chipped. To quote them from earlier in the debate, "we should implant micro chips in all criminals before being released from jail." My opponent now says, "People who have been convicted of hunting or other summary convictions would not be implanted with a chip." If we refer back to my definitions of conviction and criminal from before, we see that the term "all" does indeed include these misdemeanors. The resolution is "Convicted criminals should all be chipped." My opponent has essentially conceded that not all convicted criminals should be chipped. Pro has endorsed the Con position, and therefore the Con should be voted for on the ballot.I will now rebut my opponent point-by-point.My opponent's first and second points are very similar so I shall group them. Pro's first and second points in their rebuttal are that convicted criminals should forfeit their 14th Amendment rights simply because they have been found guilty of a crime. Pro says that this is okay because of a 75% recidivism rate. I strongly disagree. In 2015, 641,100 people were released from prison (2). The idea that we should violate the rights of those who won't return to prison, which would amount to more than 160 thousand people per year, is silly. That's a very large number of people whose bodily integrity would be violated without just cause. This also assumes that all people convicted of a crime are actually guilty. In 2015, a record number of 149 people were exonerated in the US (3). It is fair to say that these are not the only people who are actually innocent but in prison. Pro's advocacy would make us violate the rights of people who haven't even committed a crime. Pro then goes on and says that he somehow believes that what insurance companies do is related to the prison system in the US. Not only do they not provide a source for this claim, but they don't even explain why it is equivalent to the prison system. My opponent also says that there would be "75% approval" of this action. No, there would be no approval from my side. We don't know who will violate the law again after release, and thus we should not place a chip in anyone because there is a 1 in 4 chance that it will be violating their rights without just cause.Pro's third main point is "Rehabilitation does not work because people are born this way." They then go on to make it sound like criminals were naturally born to become criminals, albeit with some societal factors influencing them. They don't provide a source for this claim, so we shouldn't even consider it. To further prove my opponent wrong, I have already provided evidence in the previous round which says rehabilitation efforts can reduce recidivism by as much as 20% (4). My opponent then goes on to say that in his opinion, "once you have been convicted you have lost all rights and privileges." This statement is deeply flawed. It essentially says that criminals' lives do not matter, and that they can be abused without just cause. Not only is that unconstitutional (5), but it is also morally atrocious. According to the US Department of Justice, about 5.1% of all people in the US will be incarcerated at some point in their lives (6). By doing some simple math based off of the current population of the US (7), we come to the conclusion that approximately 16,575,000 people will be/have been sent to jail in their lives. Now is when we gain some clarity in what Pro is really arguing. They are arguing for a system in which the government would have data on the location of more than 16 million Americans who have done nothing to justify such a system. This is an absolutely massive violation of rights which would affect more than 1 in 20 people. We shouldn't permit rights to be violated like this. My opponent's last argument boils down to saying something along the lines of 'the NSA is already violating rights, so not chipping doesn't really protect from a violation of rights.' That's arguing that we should allow more violations of rights simply because some already exist, and this is a very slippery slope. From this could potentially stem arguments for repealing the 4th and 5th Amendments in particular and the whole Bill of Rights together. That would be terrible for the rights of all people, and thus we shouldn't do that.In summary, I have proven that my opponent's lack of evidence and contradictory statements alone should be reason enough to vote Con, Pro's plan is an advocacy for massive violations of rights in both quantity and quality without just cause, and that rehabilitation is a preferable alternative to chipping for reducing crime.Sources:(1)https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2)https://csgjusticecenter.org...(3)http://www.law.umich.edu...(4)http://static.nicic.gov...(5)https://www.constituteproject.org...(6)https://bjs.gov...(7)https://www.census.gov...
a8a7b814-2019-04-18T18:25:26Z-00004-000	This will be interesting. Now before we move onto the arguments, we need to establish some definitions here:Human Right - A right that self-evidently should belong to everyone. Commodity- any marketable item produced to satisfy needs or needs. Drinking Water- water that won't make you sick if you drink itHumans need water to live, and I don't believe you should have to earn/pay for your right to live. However, in the current economic system, water has to be sold or else that would increase unemployment rates and make the economy worse. That's how the world works. But who's to day that's the only way the world works? I propose a resource-based economy, because we have the resources to filter the oceans water and give it to everyone. This would also be helpful to humanity, because the sea levels are rising from melting ice caps and are projected to flood major cities in the future. If you want to learn more about a resource-based economy (which isn't bartering) you can look at one of my debates, google it, or watch a Zeitgeist film. But I won't go on that tangent. So in conclusion of this paragraph, it's both necessary for survival and it's resourcefully feasible, but not fiscally feasible. Coffee is a commodity. You don't necessarily need coffee to survive. Any specific food is a commodity. But access to food in general should be a human right, as it is fundamental to one's survival. Access to water or at least juiceable fruit is also fundamental to survival. So if we planted fruit trees in Africa, and gave them the tools to juice the fruit, and made the land arable, then that would solve some problems. But one of the things necessary for arable land is water, so why not give them water and the tools to filter it anyway?
e5109f37-2019-04-18T11:35:57Z-00003-000	You mention the NRA a lot in your argument. We could talk about NRA all day long, but I'd rather we stick with the core of the argument. It is ridiculous for cities to charge you for not giving them your gun. People are the ones killing people; guns are not. I think we should have more security to actually get the guns and to access them. Again, Concealed Carry owners break the law 6% less than the police! They are the most responsible citizens in America. When you bring up all the mass shootings: This is why teachers should have guns, to stop the shooter. It would only be teachers who already conceal and carry, just like they do at the mall, taking a walk, or doing anything. You can't deny the fact that there were multiple armed security guards in the Parkland shooting, yet NONE of them did anything to stop it! So your saying to leave it to the cops. If someone starts shooting at you, the cops aren't right there to stop it. You can shoot back if you have a gun, or other armed civilians can. In the Texas church shooting, a man stopped the shooter with an AR-15. In a Tennessee church shooting, a good Samaritan stopped the shooter and held him at gun point until the cops arrived. These are just to name a few. Concealed-Carry people are more law-abiding than the police and the most responsible people. By the time the cops arrive, it will be to late, as we have seen in so many of these shootings. Again, more guns save lives than take them. In places where guns were banned, murder rates spiked up. This is because of bad guys using knives or getting guns illegally. If the government takes away our second-amendment right, we will have no way to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
cbe3fa7b-2019-04-18T19:42:23Z-00000-000	ToTo begin, the list of studies is not misleading. My opponent believes that the studies fail to prove my point because their are "many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse." This would lead one to assume that the United States is the only country that has problems with drug or alcohol abuse, which is not the case. These so-called "factors" are also factors in other nations, meaning my attack on your a priori holds water. By the way, I would like a citation for your comment about the Canadian president using doctors here BECAUSE the particular procedure isn't offered in Canada. To clarify, no I am not advocating a set price for doctor's pay. I am advocating that the individual doctor charge the amount he/she deems adequate and they shouldn't do what all other companies do with prices, which is advertise how low they are and how high other competitors might be. This way doctors are paid what they need to be paid. Some companies like Best Buy price their computers so low in price that they actually lose money on them, but they do it to be competitive. Once doctors start losing money, there goes the quality. Moreover, my opponent mis-quoted me when he claimed that I said the doctors should be paid on their quality of their service when I said "Doctors should be paid for the service they provide, not set prices for each visit" Such as, they should be paid for their time, their assistants time, use of the equipment, and any other overhead. I would now like to address another issue. My opponent has stated that the rich will always get the best doctors, this is true. But there are still good doctors that can treat the middle and lower classes. It is these doctors that I worry about losing. Next - my opponent brings up the point that the medicine is what is most valuable to the patient, and this is true. But I would ask him and all the readers how that medicine is given out. The doctor must prescribe it. I do not limit this to prescription drugs, but also more complicated procedure like surgery and chemotherapy. Tests must be done, numbers crunched, more tests must be done, and then finally the best course of action must be taken. As stated earlier, we want these doctors to prescribe the best course of action not the cheapest. When doctors compete for the bid of the insurance companies, they are essentially owned by those companies. As stated, the company doesn't want the best course of action they want the cheapest and those two things rarely go together. I cite the teenager in California who died when the insurance companies refused to pay for a liver transplant deemed necessary by her doctor's and I encourage everyone to click on the link below and learn more about the reluctance of insurance companies to pay up. http://www.pajamadeen.com... Finally, some more of those statistics my opponent seems to dislike. Keep in mind the previous (and unanswered) quote above were I stated "Evidence suggests that over one third of health care costs goes to unnecessary tests, duplicate tests, unproven experimental procedures, bureaucracy, and overpriced drugs (which I have shown above how companies monopolize new medical breakthroughs.)" While doctors in the United States earn more money than doctors in other nations, they also pay less for other related expenses such as prescription drugs (the latter costing more money than the former) and almost all workers in the U.S. are paid salaries higher than those in other nations. The average doctor makes around $250,000 a year, which is a nice sum of money, but the average CEO and other high ranking executives of a drug companies can make million's more in that same year. I will end with a comparison, that of teachers and schools to that of doctors and medicine. If you want to cut costs in the school in order to better the system and make it more efficient, you do not do that by cutting the salaries of the teachers for performing an invaluable service. Your do things like reduce waste, use both sides of the paper, ect. Same goes for doctors, if you want to cut cost, look at my citation above for the culprits. I would like to make a small comment about my opponents "Value, Value Criterion". Justice is defined as "the moral principle determining just conduct." Looking out for those who need it is just conduct. Furthermore I would contend that my opponents Value criterion does not apply, because even if my proposition isn't upheld (As I mentioned before, doctors do not compete normally as Home Depot and Lowes does they have something called managed competition which is why there are no commercials advertising their low low prices.) The reason for this being the basic principle of supply and demand. Demand comes from the consumer's needs and the supply comes through producer. In the case of medicine the supply and the demand comes from the doctor because the consumer (patient) doesn't know what they usually need, especially in cases of severe diseases like lime disease, diabetes, STDs, cancers, ect. Since one person controls both forces, the free market system does not apply no matter what happens. I hope that I didn't leave any of my opponent's points un-attacked, as he seems to think I have (like he would have actually given me the heads up if it were true). I would like to also apologize to my opponent seeing has he dislikes my long arguments, but that is a small side effect of having facts. http://hypertextbook.com... - doctor salary http://www.forbes.com... - For what they are paying these high rankers. P.S. Citations are a nice touch.
e4f19ef3-2019-04-18T17:42:49Z-00000-000	My opponent was not able to defend any of his arguments. He was not able to defend every time of gun control, which his burden was, and he wasn't able to show why no gun control laws shouldn't be put into place. My opponent wasn't able to defend his second-amendment/natural rights argument, because he said that "you can't control/take away someone's natural rights given to you by being born in this country." Sure, but, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Like my undisputed argument showed, the government has the obligation to protect its citizens, so it will control weapons to the point where we won't be equipping fully-auto machine guns on our backs. My opponent's defense on this made no sense, and you cannot look to it. My opponent also doesn't seem to have any knowledge of American history, "You clam that people would walk around with machine guns and RPGS why didn't this happen in the past?" Well, see, in the past, RPGs didn't exist. Then, the second amendment was put into place. They didn't exist. These are obviously not weapons needed by citizens. These are military-grade weapons, so my opponent seems to think it's wise for these types of weapons to be used in public. My opponent's bullying argument shouldn't be considered because he spent almost no time showing what he meant. I urged a Pro Vote for these reasons, thank you.
2e6744c4-2019-04-18T17:49:49Z-00002-000	Although you may have less stress and more family time, there will be a new problem at hand. Peple will start illegally working to get the income they require. The goverment will be furious and they can't put a law in place to stop them because there is already a law that says working under the table is illegal.
9386ea8d-2019-04-18T15:45:31Z-00002-000	Pitiful. 1000 characters to make a case for Euthanasia... I doubt Pro will contest that people have the right to life. Like with any right, it is up to the individual as to whether or not they are going to exercise that right. Rights, by definition, cannot translate into obligations. If someone has the right to free speech but chooses not to speak out against anything, then it is ultimately their own loss. If someone has the right to vote, but chooses not to vote, it's the same deal. Why should the right to life be any different? If someone has the right to life, they should also have the right to abstain from exercising that right-- they should have the right to death. If someone wants to die, then the safest and least painful way to do it is to have euthanasia administered in a clinical setting. By keeping euthanasia illegal, the government violates our right to death and causes unnecessary additional suffering to citizens, which is completely contrary to the role of government.
dca244e0-2019-04-18T18:59:40Z-00001-000	I would like to start out by saying the I was kind of confused by your statement, "I don't want anyone to think that it is necessary to come out with an idea of giving the students a huge break of 2 months somewhere randomly in the year." That is what summer vacation is, is a 2 month break from school. The way you stated that makes me believe that you are saying that you do not agree with summer vacation, therefore you would actually agree with having school all year long. So if you could please clarify that, I would greatly appreciate it. As for students forgetting what they learned over summer vacation, here is the evidence. It was posted February 19, 2010 by a guy named Ryan Normandin, who is a journalist for, The Tech, a newspaper that focuses on student life. http://tech.mit.edu... In the third paragraph, it states, "Research has shown students retain only five percent of what they learn in lecture, making it one of the least efficient ways of teaching. Over the summer, students forget so much information that teachers are forced to spend valuable time reviewing old material. The fact that our model of public education has not undergone significant change in 200 years is a major factor in the decline of American education. It is time to turn that around. There are three areas that we must examine: the school year, what is taught, and how it is taught." The entire fifth paragraph states, "The benefits will be numerous. First, students will be in school more often, giving them time to both learn material in-depth and to be creative in doing things they enjoy. It will eliminate, for the most part, any significant time lost on reviewing forgotten material." The average teacher's salary goes from $40,447-$44,175. http://www.payscale.com... Yes, teachers do get paid out of taxpayer's money. But I have done a little research and have come up with the following, and as well have included links to how I got all my information. ~ http://www.cnpp.usda.gov... As of January of 2010, the lowest average grocery bill for a family of 2 between 19 and 50 years old would be $80.80 per week which would round out to $3,818.40 a year. The highest for that same family would be $350.40 per week rounding out to $4,203.60 for the whole year. The lowest grocery bill for a family of 4, which includes a couple 19-50 years old with 2 children 2-5 years old is $117.70 per week, or $5,649.60 per year. That same family could also have the highest grocery bill of $135.10 per week, or $6,121.20 per year. That is just the lowest amount of money the average family spent in January of 2010 for each of the categories I named off. The graph I included will show everything else in more detail and depth. ~http://www.articleclick.com... A study done in this year of 2010 has shown that the average amount of money spent on gas per year is approximately $14,400. That may not be the case with everyone, but that is the average spent per year ~http://www.babycenter.com... This chart shows that the lowest average child care will cost about $316-$1,221 a month, or $3,792-$14,652 a year for a day care, and $2,167-$3,033 a month, or $26,004-$36,396 a year for a nanny. Now I have added it up, and the lowest cost of grocery bills, gas, and child care for one year will be about $22,070.40, while the highest will be about $56,917.20. Now if we were to take out the child care, since the children would be in school that would save families approximately $36,396 a year. Going on what my opponent stated that "teachers would make about 25% more money," that would mean that the teachers would be making about $10,111.75-$11,043.75 more. That would still leave the families with between $25,352.25 and $26,284.25 of extra money. Now granted, during the summer kids have camps and things like that they may attend in order to stay out of trouble, but how many of them would actually WANT to go to stuff like that, in which many of them may see as "childish?" If they were doing something that they didn't really have a choice to do, they would be more likely to stay away from thing that could harm them. And finally, as for the "lack of tourism in popular vacation spots" my opponent says "would hurt the economy," I bring back my first proof. http://tech.mit.edu... The entire seventh and eighth paragraphs state it all. I firmly believe that with all my links provided and everything I have stated, it IS in our best interest to have school all year long.
98d8337d-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00003-000	I personally do not condone the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs and/or Supplements whether they are illegal or not. But, I believe that in small quantities they are not harmful to teenagers. I look forward to further informing you on this topic.
98d8337d-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00004-000	Unfortunately I received no rebuttals from last argument so I have re-submitted and hope that Con will be able to finish the debate. I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are not necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered "performance enhancers" or "dietary" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec•re•a•tion•al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup•ple•ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.
49cd40b7-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00001-000	The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate. Medical technology today has achieved remarkable feats in prolonging the lives of human beings. Respirators can support a patient"s failing lungs and medicines can sustain that patient"s physiological processes. For those patients who have a realistic chance of surviving an illness or accident, medical technology is science"s greatest gift to mankind. For the terminally ill, however, it is just a means of prolonging suffering. Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes.Yet the only thing that medical technology does for a dying patient is give that patient more pain and agony day after day. Some terminal patients in the past have gone to their doctors and asked for a final medication that would take all the pain away" lethal drugs. For example, as Ronald Dworkin recounts, Lillian Boyes, an English woman who was suffering from a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis, begged her doctor to assist her to die because she could no longer stand the pain (184). Another example is Dr. Ali Khalili, Dr. Jack Kevorkian"s twentieth patient. According to Kevorkian"s attorney, "[Dr. Khalili] was a pain specialist; he could get any kind of pain medication, but he came to Dr. Kevorkian. There are times when pain medication does not suffice"(qtd. in Cotton 363). Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure. A competent terminal patient must have the option of assisted suicide because it is in the best interest of that person. Further, a dying person"s physical suffering can be most unbearable to that person"s immediate family. Medical technology has failed to save a loved-one. But, successful or not, medicine has a high price attached to it. The cost is sometimes too much for the terminally ill"s family. A competent dying person has some knowledge of this, and with every day that he or she is kept alive, the hospital costs skyrocket. "The cost of maintaining [a dying person]. . . has been estimated as ranging from about two thousand to ten thousand dollars a month" (Dworkin 187). Human life is expensive, and in the hospital there are only a few affluent terminal patients who can afford to prolong what life is left in them. As for the not-so-affluent patients, the cost of their lives is left to their families. Of course, most families do not consider the cost while the terminally ill loved-one is still alive.When that loved-one passes away, however, the family has to struggle with a huge hospital bill and are often subject to financial ruin.Most terminal patients want their death to be a peaceful one and with as much consolation as possible. Ronald Dworkin, author of Life"s Dominion, says that "many people . . . want to save their relatives the expense of keeping them pointlessly alive . . ."(193). To leave the family in financial ruin is by no means a form of consolation. Those terminally ill patients who have accepted their imminent death cannot prevent their families from plunging into financial debt because they do not have the option of halting the medical bills from piling up. If terminal patients have the option of assisted suicide, they can ease their families" financial burdens as well as their suffering. Finally, many terminal patients want the right to assisted suicide because it is a means to endure their end without the unnecessary suffering and cost. Most, also, believe that the right to assisted suicide is an inherent right which does not have to be given to the individual. It is a liberty which cannot be denied because those who are dying might want to use this liberty as a way to pursue their happiness. Dr. Kevorkian"s attorney, Geoffrey N. Fieger, voices the absurdity of curbing the right to assisted suicide, saying that "a law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else"s constitutional rights is insane" (qtd. in Cotton 364). Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die with dignity. Choosing the right to assisted suicide would be a final exercise of autonomy for the dying. They will not be seen as people who are waiting to die but as human beings making one final active choice in their lives. As Dworkin puts it, "whatever view we take about [euthanasia], we want the right to decide for ourselves . . ."(239). On the other side of the issue, however, people who are against assisted suicide do not believe that the terminally ill have the right to end their suffering. They hold that it is against the Hippocratic Oath for doctors to participate in active euthanasia. Perhaps most of those who hold this argument do not know that, for example, in Canada only a "few medical schools use the Hippocratic Oath" because it is inconsistent with its premises (Barnard 28). The oath makes the physician promise to relieve pain and not to administer deadly medicine.This oath cannot be applied to cancer patients. For treatment, cancer patients are given chemotherapy, a form of radioactive medicine that is poisonous to the body. As a result of chemotherapy, the body suffers incredible pain, hair loss, vomiting, and other extremely unpleasant side effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be considered "deadly medicine" because of its effects on the human body, and this inconsistency is the reason why the Hippocratic Oath cannot be used to deny the right to assisted suicide. Furthermore, to administer numerous drugs to a terminal patient and place him or her on medical equipment does not help anything except the disease itself. Respirators and high dosages of drugs cannot save the terminal patient from the victory of a disease or an illness. Dr. Christaan Barnard, author of Good Life/Good Death, quotes his colleague, Dr. Robert Twycross, who said, "To use such measures in the terminally ill, with no expectancy of a return to health, is generally inappropriate and is"therefore"bad medicine by definition" (22). Still other people argue that if the right to assisted suicide is given, the doctor-patient relationship would encourage distrust. The antithesis of this claim is true. Cheryl Smith, in her article advocating active euthanasia (or assisted suicide), says that "patients who are able to discuss sensitive issues such as this are more likely to trust their physicians" (409). A terminal patient consenting to assisted suicide knows that a doctor"s job is to relieve pain, and giving consent to that doctor shows great trust. Other opponents of assisted suicide insist that there are potential abuses that can arise from legalizing assisted suicide.They claim that terminal patients might be forced to choose assisted suicide because of their financial situation.This view is to be respected. However, the choice of assisted suicide is in the patient"s best interest, and this interest can include the financial situation of a patient"s relatives. Competent terminal patients can easily see the sorrow and grief that their families undergo while they wait for death to take their dying loved ones away. The choice of assisted suicide would allow these terminally ill patients to end the sorrow and griefof their families as well as their own misery. The choice would also put a halt to the financial worries of these families. It is in the patient"s interest that the families that they leave will be subject to the smallest amount of grief and worry possible.This is not a mere "duty to die." It is a caring way for the dying to say, "Yes, I am going to die. It is all right, please do not worry anymore." Further, legalization of assisted suicide will also help to regulate the practice of it. "Legalization, with medical record documentation and reporting requirements, will enable authorities to regulate the practice and guard against abuses, while punishing real offenders"(Smith 409). There are still some, however, who argue that the right to assisted suicide is not a right that can be given to anyone at all. This claim is countered by a judge by the name of Stephen Reinhardt. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this issue by saying that "a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a
7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00004-000	should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory
ae578f31-2019-04-18T19:54:47Z-00000-000	To bring this to the front, a tax break simply won't work because 1/3 of Americans don't even pay taxes. A fine would hurt the poor more than the rich and the poor are the ones more likely to miss an election if their car breaks down if they even have one. Again I ask, what's the problem with not being elected by the majority of Americans? I'm not saying the majority that voted. I'm saying the majority of American citizens. Even in Australia they don't have all the people show up to vote, if the standard is to win the majority, it won't always happen in Australia either. "Every win in every election is essentially illegitimate." Lets define illegitimate. From http://www.m-w.com... ; "2:ï¿½not rightly deduced or inferred :ï¿½illogical3:ï¿½departing from the regular :ï¿½erratic4 a:ï¿½not sanctioned by law :ï¿½illegal b:ï¿½not authorized by good usage cof a taxon :ï¿½published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code." Take your pick, none of them fit. "Should we require poll testing" ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "The fact is, qualifying people's votes in any way is unconstitutional and illegal." ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "who is to say the valid opinion of the true majority of Americans would somehow be the 'wrong' one?" ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! If you have a valid opinion, vote. "Maybe the government should just protect us all from ourselves and choose who is going to be president themselves." ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "Once at the polling station, these people would either abstain if they had no viable opinion or cast their vote for whatever reason they decide." How do you know that they would abstain if they had no viable opinion? "Its presumptuous to think that your reasons for voting are any more important than theirs." Really? If they are only going to avoid a fine and I'm going to make a real change in our government, my reason for voting is better than theirs. "I don't have any reason to believe their would be some new bureaucracy formed." How would you implement the tax break or fine without a new agency? "People who truly don't have an opinion could abstain." But they would still have to drive to the polling place, waste their time and gas to drive there. "Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to vote?" Oh here's a familiar answer. (copy + paste) ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "Whether you personally see it that way or not, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several Supreme Court decisions do." Did the supreme court say that we should have compulsory voting? No I didn't think so. "So, your position stands as unconstitutional and illegal." LOL. I'm so sorry, I just can't stop laughing.
ae578f31-2019-04-18T19:54:47Z-00002-000	First off, you're right, the debate should be judged on the arguments, and which ones are more believable. But that doesn't mean that the one who is more elegant should automatically win the round. It's about who's argument is better. The person who debated that "1=2" lost the debate because what he was saying was outrageous. 1) What's wrong with not being elected by the majority of the people in the U.S.? They were elected by the majority of those who showed up to vote, so what's the problem? President Bush didn't even win that in 2000, are you saying his victory was illegitimate because of that? Even if all the registered voters in the country had showed up and voted that day, he still could've won without winning the popular vote. An incentive would essentially be the same as a fine because where does that money come from? Taxes. The only difference would be the rich would have a bigger penalty than the poor. 2) If someone chooses not to vote, they are essentially saying, "I don't know the issues well enough to make an informed decision" or "It doesn't matter enough to me to get out and vote." If someone doesn't think that they themselves should vote, who are you to tell them that they should, regardless of whether they actually know the issues. "CV would increase voter knowledge and interest." No that's simply false, it would increase American interest on the whole but the average voter would be less informed. There are cons to Compulsory Voting. It would be creating yet another useless bureaucracy and it would decrease the percent of informed voters. No one's stopping anyone from voting, if you want your opinion to be heard it will be heard. Is it better to have everyone vote and make the wrong decision or have 20% vote and make the right one? Isn't that the point of a Representative Democracy? So that not everyone has to vote on something they may know nothing about?
e65906b2-2019-04-18T16:51:26Z-00002-000	Sorry I haven't been on. Wanna start a new debate?
80eeb195-2019-04-18T18:23:36Z-00006-000	Marijuana should not be legalised because it is bad for your health. End of story. I win!
2bb0061-2019-04-18T15:13:40Z-00005-000	This is a debate about whether or not abortion should be legal. I will be arguing con abortion, and my opponent will be arguing pro. We are taught that killing other people is wrong, also when they are smaller and weaker than us or more dependent on others. Yet still a lot of people think that abortion is alright. Abortion is killing another human, and as if that"s not bad enough in itself it"s killing an innocent life that has no way of defending itself. But of course, that is only true, depending on when life starts; at birth, or at conception. We are not certain on this matter, but one thing is certain, at some point the embryo get too developed, and we can call that a person. Already at the +8th week the embryo feels real pain, both psychological and physical pain. Just like a toddler, embryos are still a human being, a smaller and way more dependent human being, but none the less still a human being. This is a difference in degree and not kind. Therefor is abortion murder, and should be illegal.
71dd53dc-2019-04-18T19:14:29Z-00000-000	1. Autistic Children To clarify, I said that I have no qualms with marijuana being legalized for those over the age of 18. Con never disputed that discrepancy. Because children - including autistic children - are not over 18, they should not be permitted to smoke marijuana. I gave a number of reasons for this, including but not limited to the fact that their parents are responsible for them. When an individual reaches 18 years of age and is seen as a legal adult in the eyes of the law (wholly responsible for their actions, and considered eligible for things like voting and the draft), then they should be allowed to legally smoke pot. Again, autistic children should be no exception strictly in terms of the law. Medical marijuana is a different story - but more about that later. For now, you'll notice that Con's only rebuttal here was that my opinion doesn't matter. As you can see, this is not enough to negate my point. 2. Marijuana's Harm and the Harm Principle I pointed out that parents should not make the decision to give their children medicinal marijuana unless it has been tested or predicted to be severely beneficial. Con's only argument was that (1) I'm in favor of legalization... however, how I really feel is irrelevant; this debate is not about past debates, my opinions, etc. I find it ironic that Con says my opinion doesn't matter in point #1, but then draws upon my opinion as evidence in point #2. Nevertheless, he also writes that (2) marijuana isn't considered severely harmful and (3) JSM's harm principle makes it okay for parents to experiment. Going back to his second point, I pointed out that medical marijuana has in fact known to draw up some severe mental problems, all of which I detailed and linked sources to in the last round. So, for one with a severe MENTAL ILLNESS or even retardation, it might not be the best idea to have them experiment with pot - a known hallucinogen [1]. That could have devastating mental effects on an individual. Con is right regarding marijuana being essentially harmless; however, he didn't take into consideration the harm that it might have on those who are already mentally ill. While one source did mention less irritability, it did absolutely nothing to discuss the child's mental health. Further, you'll notice that Con wrote, "The autistic children being allowed to receive pot are regularly reported as being violent and being a danger to their parents." So... autistic children smoking pot are violent and dangerous, and as such we should continue giving it to them? Hmm. Moving on, let's analyze what the harm principle actually says: That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. So a few things -- First, Con has not proven that autistic children are dangerous or harmful. Unruly and aggressive? Sure. But dangerous? No. Second, Con's only proof that marijuana even works is from a report of a stressed out mom whose kid has autism. So, ladies and gentlemen, if MY opinion doesn't count because it's just a regular opinion (I don't have a medical degree), then Con's lone example shouldn't count either. If you check his source, the example provided was by a mom who gave her 9 year old kid pot as a substitute for the medicine he was receiving prior to that. That's hardly proof or hard empirical data in his favor. 3. Alternatives I see absolutely no reason why my list of alternatives isn't an argument. How am I supposed to "explain them" as Con suggests? It's pretty obvious that the alternatives I listed were proven medical alternatives to treat autism and the symptoms that pot supposedly helps sure. Moreover, Con says that my alternatives haven't been 100% proven effective... however, he is advocating the legalization of pot for experimental purposes -- in other words, his solution isn't proven effective either. Once again, this is a hypocritical argument. My alternatives are healthier and safer because they don't require an already mentally challenged brain ingesting a hallucinogen, but rather making dietary changes and practicing other forms of therapy to help alleviate negative symptoms. Also, saying that the dietary changes are "controversial" does not mean that it's bad - it just means that a consensus hasn't been reached regarding precise data. Plus, just because there are "side effects" as Con pointed out doesn't mean that those side effects are negative. You'll notice that my alternatives (most of which are therapeutic - and Con only attacked the dietary one) have no known bad side effects according to the link and source, whereas pot does; links for proof can be found in my last round. 4. Legal and Auxiliary Issues As I said in the last round, it was never clarified in the resolution or R1 that this debate was about changing the current laws. So, under the current legalities, I maintain that autistic children should not be allowed to smoke pot as it is currently illegal. However, assuming that they could legally smoke utilizing a medical marijuana card (and using it was recommended by an esteemed physician), then I would not be against it... But, you'll notice that in R1, Con's argument was that autistic children should have access to marijuana that they could CUT, USE, and SELL FOR PROFIT. In that case, I am against the resolution... and you'll notice that Con absolutely did not defend that assertion, and instead has changed the debate entirely to be about whether or not autistic kids should be able to smoke marijuana legally for medicinal purposes. While I've adjusted to the new contentions, Con's altering of his stance in the debate is abusive in terms of debate etiquette. While Con thinks it's okay to simply "drop the point about the gangs" ... which by the way has nothing to do with the using and selling for profit, as you don't have to be in a gang to do that ... The reality is that Con ONLY brought other arguments into this which have nothing to do with his original intentions regarding the debate. So, I have been forced to debate something that was never accepted upon in the first round. While Con did clarify that he would add more arguments (and that's allowed), dropping the 1st and only presented argument in R1 to drastically alter the direction of your case is bad conduct. That said, I've also pointed out that even if pot WERE legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that people should smoke pot, let alone people with autism, let alone children with autism. If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate. 5. Conclusion and Re-cap A) Con never specified that this debate was about changing the current laws. So, under the current laws, autistic children should not be allowed to smoke pot (it's illegal). B) Even if pot were legal, it's not good for child consumption - particularly children with mental illness. Con didn't provide substantial MEDICAL evidence that pot helps; only that it calmed 1 particular child down... which is useless information, as we already know that pot can work as a sedative. C) Pot can be potentially harmful to smoke for those with mental disorders. I linked information in the last round about how it can negatively impact the brain, and provided information as to why it's more likely to be harmful to one who is already experiencing medical difficulties. D) If a parent disagrees of their child using it, they shouldn't be allowed to. E) While parents do make most of the medical situations, they can not make all decisions; some can be overrided by doctors or the State. For instance, a parent cannot give consent for those under 18 to go sky diving because it's too risky. The same applies to autistic kids and pot, and The Harm Principle does not apply. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.acde.org...
c40de0c9-2019-04-18T15:41:52Z-00003-000	It seems my opponent has used the previous round to attack my arguments, rather than building their own. The only argument they have given us so far is that a full life is worth more than a childs life. This is a valid point. However one must take into consideration the quality of that life. Is a child that grows up to be a miserable drug addict worth more than someone who has a happy life, even if it is already half over? One cannot simplify the value of a life to how long that life was lived. You must take into account factors like quality of life, and overall human happiness. My opponent states that the only reason abortion should be allowed is in the case of severely disabled children. This implies that woman who are raped should be forced into having their child, and reliving the trauma that caused the child to exist every day. This also implies that mothers who will die if they are to have their child should be forced to have it. Those woman would be forced to die. It implies that crack addicted woman living on the streets should be forced to give birth to crack addicted babies. Why? Simply because the child would live a longer life than the mother. I disagree with this type of thinking completely. Morality cannot be boiled down to, whoever can live longer is more valuable. That stringent moral frame is dangerous to operate in. On to defending my previous arguments: Previously I had stated that using condoms was a way of preventing life, and can be compared to birth control or abortion. My opponent stated "The birth control argument fails most importantly for failing to recognize the difference between "failing to create potential", and "destroying already existing potential"" This is a flawed argument. Any fertile man and woman have the potential to create a child. Abortion, birth control and condoms are all designed for the same purpose - to prevent birth. Abortion is a means of enjoying the fun of sex without the consequences of a child. Condom's are designed for the exact same purpose, so is any type of birth control. When I pointed out that someone who cannot make decisions for themselves, (like a child or someone in a vegetative state) the right to make their decisions is then given to their next of kin. My opponent states that the laws regarding the fate of someone in a vegetative state are widely contested. This is true. However, the laws were made that way because the majority of people believe it was the correct thing to do. However this misses the point of my original argument entirely. My original point was alluding to the fact that a mother should have the right to choose what she does with her own body, at least until the fetus has developed the capacity to feel pain or know it exists. About the population control argument: My opponent has pointed out that when a population reaches the maximum size it can sustain it does not simply die out, it reaches it's "carrying capacity". This is correct, I should have worded this better. I was not implying that everyone would die. When any population reaches carrying capacity, it does so by first exceeding it's capacity, until natural forces such as disease, hunger, poverty, and general bad quality of life kill of the excess. In this case the excess being humans. Obviously this is something to be avoided. Tell me con, according to your moral framework what is better, 7 billion people living average lives, or 15 billion people suffering due to overpopulation? The only point my opponent failed to address was my second one "can you murder what is not yet alive". I pointed out that a fetus doesn't know it exists at this point, it cannot feel pain, and it has no consciousness. At this point the fetus is essentially a growth. The inevitable argument against this point is that preventing human life is bad. This will always lead to the conclusion that birth control, oral sex, and any other type of method used to have sex and prevent life are equally as wrong
aba65d2c-2019-04-18T13:42:39Z-00003-000	I acceptI will go into further arguements in later rounds but i will make an statement for now.The result of any election will not effect those who are not citiznes. They can just as easily leave the country and go back to where they came from because they have their own country passports. 'Murica
aba65d2c-2019-04-18T13:42:39Z-00004-000	Voting affects everyone that lives in the United States. I don't think it's fair that only citizens are allowed to vote.
117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00007-000	I'd like to welcome Actionsspeak to this round of the Group B Round Robin debate in the World Cup Debate tournament! It is my pleasure to debate with him, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so and look forward to it greatly. I wish him luck in this and his other debates. With that, I'll move into explaining my policy to uphold the above resolution. Before I get into it though, I'd just like the audience to realize that this will not be a debate of my policy versus status quo, but rather one of policy versus policy. Con will present a policy as well in his opening round, and we will debate the merits of those two policies. So, my policy is pretty self-explanatory. The U. S. will legalize the use of anabolic steroids and hormones of all sorts in major sporting leagues. This will remove any current infrastructure based on detection of their usage in sports, though health examinations and basic protective measures will remain in place. Brief definition analysis: "Anabolic steroids, technically known as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), are drugs that are structurally related to the cyclic steroid ring system and have similar effects to testosterone in the body. They increase protein within cells, especially in skeletal muscles. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hormones " In this case, we'll mainly be discussing the usage of major groups of hormones like erythropoietin and human growth hormone. I'll clarify each: "Erythropoietin. .. , or EPO, is a glycoprotein hormone that controls erythropoiesis, or red blood cell production. It is a cytokine (protein signaling molecule) for erythrocyte (red blood cell) precursors in the bone marrow. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Growth hormone (GH or HGH). .. is a peptide hormone that stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration in humans and other animals. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... As we are both discussing policies, the burden of proof is shared, as each of us must defend our individual policies while providing reasons why the others' policy is harmful. The debate will consist of 4 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments.
117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00003-000	Thanks to Actionsspeak for clarifying his case and for his opening remarks. This looks to be an interesting debate. I ask the audience to recognize that even his case is a departure from status quo. He would like to afford the capacity to decide whether steroid and hormone usage is allowed in any given sport to the sporting leagues themselves, and thus take it out of the hands of legislators. Con's third contention made it clear that the league, not lawmakers, should have the right to determine how a sport is played. So what we're really discussing here is whether or not the option should be available to individuals or to sporting leagues, not whether their usage should be legalized or not. This is an important distinction, and one that should be kept in mind that the American legal structures [1] aren't going to be an impediment in either of our cases as this debate goes forward. Now, onto my rebuttals. On Equality: 1. Sports aren't about equality. If it was, we wouldn't have winners and losers. The system of competition is meant to elevate those who are better at what they do, whether that's as a result of inherent capacities or how well they use their resources. No one is entitled to play professional sports " it's a privilege requiring enormous sacrifice and massive risk, whether they use steroids or not, and most walk away. If Con wants equality, sports isn't the place to find it. 2. Sports aren't equal. Recall two things I said in R2. First, I discussed what athletes do in order to get in shape. Flying into the mountains to thicken the blood and increase the flow of oxygen through their bodies isn't something everyone can do before competitions, nor can they all find training facilities above a certain altitude. Even among those that can, not all of them will have access to top of the line equipment, masseuses, trainers, or all the other expenses required to build muscle quickly and efficiently. They don't all have access to the same megadoses of vitamin pills, dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, or medical treatments that are allowed to everyone in status quo. Hell, things like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which increase the rate of recovery for players, are being purchased by many teams and players at tremendous costs, providing them and only them an appreciable advantage.[2] and would continue to be allowed in Con's case. Why are steroids so special? Second, I talked about how some people just have higher inherent capacities. They produce more testosterone, HGH or erythropoeitin, they can endure a faster heartbeat, or even the fact that they produce normal blood cells. Not everyone has those advantages, and Con has provided no way for anyone to make up for any such deficiencies. Only my plan seeks to solve for these concerns. 3. Con's case is worse for equality. Black market drugs are more expensive, harder to find,[3] and more dangerous, but more on that last point later. But you can look at this point one of two ways. You can accept that steroid usage causes more steroid usage, in which case Con's case is more detrimental there's already a system in place where athletes feel the need to use steroids and hormones to succeed. The only difference is that they can't use the cheapest, safest, and most well-known steroids prescribed directly by doctors at specific doses and lower cost. Con provides absolutely no reason to believe that legalization will increase usage over status quo. Even if he does, recognize that equality is only a larger problem within his case and in the status quo. The only reason why an advantage such as steroids would be considered unfair is if they're unequally distributed, but as I pointed out in the previous round, the distribution is currently as unequal as it gets. Using basic steroids and hormones instead of what's available on the black market will lower, not raise, the barrier for entry, and increase fairness to all athletes. Or you can notice that this argument has no warrant. Con asserts that steroid usage among some athletes will spread to other athletes who want to compete. This is nothing more than an assertion, and one which is not well explained. Mandatory testing programs among MLB players have revealed that a whopping 5-7% of athletes were using steroids[4], which means 93-95% of athletes were able to play at a very high level without coercion. There's no reason to believe that legalization will cause these numbers to balloon out of control. The uncertainty regarding who is using steroids/hormones in status quo, if anything, creates more impetus to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly. 4. Con also allows sports leagues to create their own barriers to entry for those with anemia, low testosterone production, reduced muscle growth, and anything else that puts them at a marked disadvantage. He allows individual leagues to discriminate against these groups, harming any sense of equality by denying access to those who could easily keep up if they had access to the available resources. On Health Concerns: 1. Athletes are already forced into an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle and die young. I made this clear in the previous round, but there's no significant difference between any of the health harms presented by Con and the ones I presented in R2. Con will have to address my point that these harms are non-unique and my hypocrisy arguments as well in the next round in order to win this point. 2. Health concerns are worse in an environment where black market drugs are the only ones being used. The reality is that the health concerns are far more excessive using designer steroids and gene doping, as I pointed out last round. Worse yet, his case only exacerbates these harms by legalizing their usage in the general community, but not in all sports. In my case, incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping is erased due to their expense and ineffectiveness by comparison. Con encourages the legal usage of the most dangerous doping substances. 3. Each athlete accepts these health concerns the moment they take these drugs. There's no reason why athletes shouldn't be able to take these concerns on themselves, especially if they know about them in advance. Since Con's case encourages athletes to pursue drugs with unknown health harms, his forces a lower capacity to consent than mine does. On "The league's rights": 1. There's no impact here. Con doesn't explain how changes in the way sports are played is actually harmful. Even if this is certain to happen, the lack of a harm makes it unimportant. 2. There's no warrant for this claim. Con doesn't explain how a change in one rule affects another one. The only possible warrant is a slippery slope fallacy, which has no rational basis in this debate. Worse yet, even if it was true that one rule change could link to another, the rules he's trying to link have nothing in common. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own bodies have no effect on whether any player can disregard the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. 3. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on any person's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. This is one of the very few influences they have on what athletes can take and use for playing their sports, and it's done with extreme hypocrisy based on shaky reasoning. Leagues should not be allowed to spurn athletes who they think have an unfair advantage based on other characteristics, and yet Con wants us to believe that this is crossing some special line. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my case and respond to these arguments. 1. http://www.steroidabuse.com... 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. http://mlb.mlb.com...
d3fcb99b-2019-04-18T15:37:25Z-00004-000	Marijuana should be legalized for recreational consumption. It should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to consume marijuana, regardless of what ever health effects it has on the body. If one enjoys passing their time by smoking marijuana that should not be an activity that is considered illegal. The three inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the catch to these rights is you only have them if you are not infringing on another individuals rights. therefore if murder is how you pursue happiness that would not be allowed due to the fact that it infringes on your victims rights. As long as ones consumption of marijuana does not infringe on the rights of another individual, one should be allowed to consume it as they see fit.
18e13a40-2019-04-18T13:03:22Z-00003-000	Refutation and reassertion of my own case (underlined statements are my opponent's arguments): My opponent has taken the stance that water should not be privatized, so my argument will be quite short. If I can show an instance where water should be privatized then I have falsified his claim. I argue that my opponent needs to show more than this. In fact, I think that it is not enough to show that there is one hypothetical instance of Bob the farmer (which I will address because that example does not prove anything), but rather than on balance, privatizing water is more beneficial than harmful. People have the right to own land. Some people own land that have bodies of water in them. Therefore people have private ownership of the body of water that belong to this land. This is not an argument for why water should be privatized. This is essentially a statement of what the status quo currently is (people can own water), not a defense of it. My opponent has not justified why private property rights should extend to water (which is the whole debate here). Now take for example Bob, who owns a small farm which contains a pond. If you are against private ownership of water, then I should have the right to enter Bob's farm and go to his pond and have a drink of his water if I am thirsty. Yes, this is exactly what I am arguing. Bob’s neighbor Tom should have the right to go and draw water from Bob’s pond when his own water source runs out. I think it is horrendous that Bob should be able to say “sorry Tom, you can’t have any water to drink, cook, or clean in because that water is mine. The only way you’re going to get any is if you pay me for it,” and eventually, Tom won’t be able to afford Bob’s water (since Bob can charge whatever he wants for it since he knows Tom’s demand is biological and must be satisfied) and will have no water at all. This is a clear violation of Bob's property rights so it stands that in this case Bob should have private ownership of the pond. Once again, my opponent needs to justify why private ownership extends to water (which is the whole debate). I have argued that since water is so fundamental, ownership of it violates dignity. Therefore, private property rights should not extend to water. This is different say, from Bob’s ownership rights over his tractor because a tractor is not a fundamental prerequisite for life. Now that I have shown why my opponent’s argument is flawed, I will now move onto show why my own arguments stand. P1 and P2 have both been agreed upon by both debaters, so both arguments clearly stand. P3 does not follow from the definitions of dignity in P2. Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living, as you have asserted, so people are only entitled to a bare minimum of water. The amount that they need to survive. Opposition concedes here that people are entitled to a bare minimum of water. Thus, as I will proceed to show, if privatization prevents people from accessing this bare minimum, then water cannot be privatized. This is, as a whole, a claim I entirely agree with: people are entitled to the bare minimum of what they need and what they need only. You cannot draw the conclusion that just because people a bare minimum amount of water needed to survive should be made publicly available for those who need it, that all water should be made publicly available to everyone. This is an entirely valid conclusion. Everyone is entitled to a bare minimum of water, privatizing water prevents some people (especially poorer people) from being able to receive this bare minimum. Why is this the case? Because privatizing water means that corporations can choose who they give water to because they own it. They choose via selling it: people who can afford to buy water receive it, those who can’t don’t. Therefore, privatizing water leads to people being prevented from getting any water at all because they can’t afford it. How is this prevented? Making sure water isn’t privatized and, therefore, keeping it available for everyone. This does NOT mean that people can take all the water they want, but it does mean that people can access water to fulfill their basic requirements. So everyone should be entitled to take whatever food they like. This would lead to disastrous effects, so we cannot accept this line of reasoning. This is an inaccurate representation of my argument: I never stated that people can take whatever amount of water they like. Rather, I clearly laid out how some people will be unable to afford water, making it impossible for them to achieve the bare minimum they need. Therefore, it cannot be privatized. However, I think that my argument does logically extend to food. People are entitled to obtain the bare minimum of food they require to live, that does not mean that people can just take whatever they want, rather, they should only get (at least) what they need. A bare minimum of water and food (and shelter) is already granted as a public right, that is why there are food banks that hand out water as well as water fountains. There already is currently privatization of water, so clearly privatization of water doesn't violate dignity, thus P3 is false. My opponent has confused the public and private sector, since large portions of the food, shelter, and water provided as a public right are provided by publicly owned corporations/the government, not private entities (e.g. social services that help provide housing is a government initiative). As water becomes more and more privatized, the amount publicly available will decrease and decrease and people won’t be able to access this bare minimum. This doesn't follow, there is a lot of water that is currently privatized and people still have access to it. Yes, people have access to it, but at a far greater price than publicly owned water (1). This just goes to show how privatization leads to price increases (for the reasons I presented in R2 which were not clashed and, therefore, stand), which will eventually prevent people from being able to access it at all. This trend will only continue as more and more water gets gobbled up by private entities and less becomes publicly owned. Actually it improves access to water since the average person doesn't have the means to go to far away bodies of water, nor filter water on their own. For the reasons I have shown in Round 2 (which again, were not refuted) this is not true. Firstly, the places where people actually go to bodies of water or filter it on their own are largely underdeveloped nations (e.g. countries in Africa where people walk miles to the local well). Should water be privatized, then these people may not be able to go to those wells and draw water because that water is the property of a foreign corporation. That corporation has no reason to build another well or provide clean water to these people because they can’t afford to pay for that water. Secondly, even in places that are developed, the same problem arises. People can be barred from accessing that water by whim: maybe one day Bob doesn’t want to give water anymore to Tom and that’s that. Access is greatly diminished and private owners have virtually no accountability to the public, allowing them to do whatever they want with the water. Additionally, my opponent has failed to prove their claim that any amount of private ownership would violate a persons rights to dignity. I have entirely shown this: people won’t be able to afford water, they won’t be able to achieve the bare minimum they need to live, therefore their dignity is violated. Moreover, dignity rights trump property rights in every situation since they are so much more fundamental, so even if you buy the argument that private property rights should exist over water, then opposition still falls because that property right is less important than individuals’ right to dignity. The resolution is affirmed.Sources: 1) http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org...
498b9542-2019-04-18T17:57:38Z-00006-000	Gun Control has presented itself to be a huge problem in American society- the last 2 tragedies with guns all had guns that had been legally purchased with permits necessary for gun ownership. the last 2 tragedies, both including suspected schizophrenic men. It has been said that guns should be banned all together, but only certain actions should be taken. I think Assault Rifles should be banned altogether, and Handguns should be completely legal. yet, when one wants to purchase firearms, such as a Glock, which was used in the last 2 tragedies, that one person should be reviewed in his/her psychological history, their criminal record, and history and then based on those factors, they will either be approved or disapproved.
eb8fa815-2019-04-18T16:47:55Z-00003-000	GLOBAL WARMING IS REALAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. They are about 35% higher than before the industrial revolution, and this increase is caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. http://www.skeptic.com...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-v3vsm-a.jpg" alt="http://www.skeptic.com...; /> http://www.skeptic.com...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-38un8-a.jpg" alt="http://www.skeptic.com...; />Earth has been in radiative imbalance since at least the 1970s, where less energy leaves the athmosphere than enters it. Most of this extra energy has been absorbed by the oceans. It is very likely that human activities substantially contributed to this increase in ocean heat content. The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance. http://www.realclimate.org...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-7g8k4-a.jpg" alt="http://www.realclimate.org...; />Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic. "The planet is red" in a global map of the change in average surface temperatures, noted Swiss climate scientist Thomas Stocker, co-chair of IPCC Working Group I responsible for this summary at a press conference. "The world is warming." http://data.giss.nasa.gov...; src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3238/96287-3238-kw63s-a.jpg" alt="http://data.giss.nasa.gov...; />The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat island effect is very small, estimated to account for less than 0.002 °C of warming per decade since 1900. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.The climate system can respond to changes in external forcings. External forcings can "push" the climate in the direction of warming or cooling. Examples of external forcings include changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., increased concentrations of greenhouse gases), solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and at present are in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures. For a direct look at the atmosphere of the past, scientists drill cores through the Earth's polar ice sheets. Tiny bubbles trapped in the gas are actually pieces of the Earth's past atmosphere, frozen in time. That's how we know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years.But if Global Warming is real, then why it is cold in US now? First of all US is not whole Earth, second of all may be because it is winter in northern pole. December 2013 was an unusually warm month even though it was colder in the U.S. In past December, North America was colder than the average over the past decade. But Europe and Russia were much hotter than average. India was cooler than average. Australia was warmer than average. Global Temprature is the average temprature of globe, and sorry US is not globe (and who cares about US). http://www.youtube.com...[1] - http://on.natgeo.com/1bNQQJe[2] - http://bit.ly/1acL5Jh[3] - http://wapo.st/1idDRX8[4] - http://bit.ly/1eiNzEA[5] - http://bit.ly/1bNR6rL[6] - http://bit.ly/19YXkZi[7] - http://1.usa.gov/1eEHLWB[8] - http://bit.ly/1cyoK8s[9] - http://bit.ly/1cyoLJA
a56a8385-2019-04-18T16:19:49Z-00004-000	Using live animals for research purposes serve a purpose. Using animals to research help create cures and treatments for diseases (procon.org). Using animals for research is the best option because they simulate animals as close as possible. Not only that, but using live animals for research purposes helps science advance. A lot of the biggest scientific discoveries were made with the assistance of live animals as test subjects (procon.org). Also, using animals as live test subjects has saved lives (procon.org). Most drugs have been tested for safety by using animals. This proves that using animals as live test subjects is alright because it serves a purpose
117e9c52-2019-04-18T16:02:17Z-00006-000	I accept the resolution and rules. I would like to thank the pro for opening this debate.I agree with the definintion for Drinking Water and Ought, but I would present two counter definition for Human Rights and Commodity. Both defintions stem from Black's Law Dictionary(8th Edition)Commodity-An economic good, esp. a raw material or an agricultural product.[1]Human Rights-The freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values, all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live.[1] [1] Garner, Bryan. Black's Law Dictionary. 8th ed. St. Paul: Thomson West, 2004. Print.
117e9c52-2019-04-18T16:02:17Z-00007-000	IntroductionThis debate is part of Mikal's DDO Tier Tournaments Take 2.Round 1 of Mid Tier users.ResolutionPro's contention is that Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.DefinitionsDrinking Water:Water reserved or suitable for drinking. [1]Ought:Used to express duty or moral obligation [2]Human Right:(law) Any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law) [3].Comodity: Something of use, advantage, or value. [4] Rules• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.• 8k characters max. per round• 4 rounds• 72 hrs• Select Winner Voting• Judges: Mikal, YYW, orangemayhem, bladerunner060, Blade-of-Truth• 2 Week Voting Period (Please don't take that long judges!) Sources1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
56d8676d-2019-04-18T12:27:09Z-00004-000	Rebuttals: In my past arguments I was trying to rebute arguments commonly used against my cause. "however people do indeed do nonsensical things" Yes, but not at such a great expense. The APA or some other source would have discovered that all gay people are actually mentally ill people that choose their sexuality and love the rush and thrill of almost being murdered, but it is a fact that the APA does not even consider homosexuality as a mental illness [4] let alone thrill chasers that would just love to be raped for liking a woman. "How can you tell if someone is homosexual?" How can you prove anything? Extensive research and testing. You can hook up an EEG to a purposed homosexual's head, show them erotic images of men and women and see how their brain waves react. More activity for men than women would prove a male to be gay, more activity for women than for men would prove female to be gay. Or maybe just do the exact same thing and see if they are sexually aroused with images of the same sex. If yes than you have your answer. Another more logical way is to ask someone "would you ever have sex with a member of the same sex on multiple occasions?" If yes then they are homosexual. New Arguments Conversion Therapy is unsuccessful Conversion therapy is one of the worse things that can happen to a person[1]. It is psychological and sometimes physical torture for the unwilling person and if homosexuality were truly a choice a person going through it would just simply choose to be straight to end the torture except even when people do that they are never truly changed[2]. They pretend to be straight until they can safely be who they are. Sham Marriages[3] A sham marriage is when, for the most part, a gay man and lesbian woman get married to appease their families. They do not have sex or kiss. They are similar to friendships. Usually involving both parties having side relationships with members of the same sex. If homosexuality was a choice then these two individuals would just marry each other and be happy without going through all of the trouble and possible jail time/family prosecution/death for being gay. Question: Why would someone choose a harder life just to have sex with a member of the same sex? Citation [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://www.livescience.com... [3]https://www.vice.com... [4]http://www.livescience.com...
da1af4bd-2019-04-18T11:43:02Z-00003-000	Fiest thank you for welcoming me very kind of you. Ok as to my views I"ve seen many say things like Israel needs to get over itself and doesn"t need a Jewish majority etc. Well the history of hate towards Jews in Europe and elsewhere plus the fact Arabs and Islam would become the dominant religion and people of say a one State sure solution was brought to the conflict means a Two State Solution needs to be found. Sadly Netanyahu and Abbas aren"t the men to achieve that. So my argument is essentially Israel needs to remain a Jewish State.
4af6a77e-2019-04-18T19:07:42Z-00005-000	It has come to my attention that there are people in this world who view the state of being homosexual or bisexual a choice that people can make. For example, the very well known politicians, Sarah Palin and Bill Richardson both believes this.(1 and 3) This belief however, is a very false misconception but unfortunately is a very widely accepted theory to the origination of homosexuality and so, is a very large problem in society. I am a person with first hand experience and for a fact KNOW that homosexuality is definitely NOT a choice. Every single other member of the LGBT community knows that in their heart also. A staggering 59% of the population believe that it is a choice for a man to be attracted to another man or a woman to another woman.(2) Sadly, this ignorance is quite widespread and is quite sickeningly untrue. I must commend the population though for the decrease in this misunderstanding as the people who thought homosexuality was a choice in 1977 took up 87% of the population.(2) I await my opponent for their response and am intrigued to see what their opinion would be on this topic. 1. http://www.youtube.com... 2. http://www.westernherald.com... (statistics in 7th paragraph) 3. http://www.youtube.com...
30477273-2019-04-18T18:26:02Z-00006-000	Abortion should be legalized because when you deal with "circumstance" it becomes tricky. The usual argument is if a woman gets raped or incest occurs, she should get an abortion. What about sex salves (By force) and a pregnancy that can go bad? If a woman needs to have an abortion, she will know it because it is her body. The doctors they attend will also give expert advice.
c351e247-2019-04-18T15:06:51Z-00004-000	Rebuttal #1 Pro states that: "The reality is that prostitution is alive and well in this country, and that it will happen whether or not we do anything about it" By legalizing Prostitution, the rate will just go higher making it easier for this trade to go on. Prostitution may always happen, but it CAN be decreased. You argue 1st off, that police officer's waste "valuable time". What is a job of a police officer anyways? Just to watch these women continue in their path's and watch their lives go down the drain? Not only are they physically abused, but some are murdered. A police officer's job, as defined in the dictionary is: "Responsibilities of a police officer are varied, and may differ greatly from within one political context to another. Typical duties relate to keeping the peace, law enforcement, protection of people and property, making us feel safe and protected and the investigation of crimes." As you can read, their job is to protect citizen's, not pretend to be oblivious to the fact that they're are many women out there who are being abused and used. Rebuttal #2 Pro then states: "The women involved in this system are often so afraid to leave it due to abuse by their pimps that even those who find it untenable cannot leave" and then proved that "crowding our prisons and jails at huge cost through both the trial and incarceration" By saying this, you agree with these women having "pimp's" because that's the main reason as to why they are employed on the street's. Let's define "Pimp" A pimp is a person, usually male, who arranges sexual acts between johns and the person in prostitution.* Although some pimps might "protect" the prostitutes who work for them by making sure that the customers pay, pimps are often more violent to the women than customers are. In fact, 85% of prostitutes are raped by pimps.* Gee, no wonder why they are afraid to leave, but it's not the women's fault! Most of the time the only reason why they go onto the streets is because they are unable to live a substantial life. This goes on to lead my to my 2nd rebuttal, There aren't as many "Pimps" as there are Prostitutes. This proves you point that arresting prostitutes will over crowd prisons. It's the "Pimp's" who employ these women and force them to work. Even if the women want to get out of it, they're unable too because of the fear over what will be done to them. There are less pimps then prostitutes because a pimp usually owns multiple prostitutes. So arresting pimps (the employer) would not over crown these prisons. My next argument: Abuse and Violence. Many people chose to ignore the fact that these prostitutes get abused much more then what we actually think. "Even though prostitution itself is illegal, crimes such as rape, abuse, and murder can still be committed against women in prostitution. Women in prostitution have the right to report crimes committed against them, though many are afraid to come forward because they will be judged and perhaps arrested." This is the main reason as to why we don't hear so much about the kind's of things that go on. If we were to legalize Prostitution it would increase, and would just make it much easier to abuse these women. Legalizing this would mean it's okay for the abuse and violence to go on. But making it illegal, would make it much harder to take advantage of these women. Many prostitutes experience : "physical violence, "sexual assault, "economic abuse or manipulation, "isolation, "verbal abuse, "threats and intimidation, and "minimization and denial of physical violence. Sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stalking, rape, battering and torture are all types of violence that prostituted women regularly experience. "Women in prostitution have a death rate that is 40 times higher than women who are not involved in prostitution." "Sixty-eight percent of prostituted women meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the same range as combat veterans and victims of torture." How could anybody possibly let this continue? So basically legalizing it makes it okay to kill abuse women. Pretty soon the trade will just get even worse because they are allowed to do whatever they want. "The health consequences to women from prostitution are the same injuries and infections suffered by women who are subjected to other forms of violence against women. The physical health consequences include: injury (bruises, broken bones, black eyes, concussions). A 1994 study conducted with 68 women in Minneapolis/St.Paul who had been prostituted for at least six months found that half the women had been physically assaulted by their purchasers, and a third of these experienced purchaser assaults at least several times a year. 23% of those assaulted were beaten severely enough to have suffered broken bones. Two experienced violence so vicious that they were beaten into a coma. Furthermore, 90% of the women in this study had experienced violence in their personal relationships resulting in miscarriage, stabbing, loss of consciousness, and head injuries" How can this possibly get any worse? I mean women are already getting murdered, but worse they have to suffer through the violence because they are afraid to leave, they're is no hope for them. 'The emotional health consequences of prostitution include severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self-medication through alcohol and drug abuse; and eating disorders. Almost all the women in the Minneapolis/St. Paul study categorized themselves as chemically-addicted. Crack cocaine and alcohol were used most frequently. Ultimately, women in prostitution are also at special risk for self-mutilation, suicide and homicide. 46% of the women in the Minneapolis/St. Paul study had attempted suicide, and 19% had tried to harm themselves physically in other ways." Not only is physical abuse, but it's emotional abuse as well. If someone who was NOT involved in prostitution and was just living a normal life in society and they experienced depression, and tried to commit suicide, serious action would be taken. They would be helped and watched out after and receive counseling and medical care. But these women aren't able to. They are forced to continue in this lifestyle with no chance of help unless we arrested there employers, then they would have a chance to leave the trade. Back to Pro! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.womenslaw.org... http://www.uri.edu...
a879b165-2019-04-18T12:19:12Z-00001-000	Thank you to Con for posting this debate. I hope we can have a civilised argument and good luck to you. First off, I don't think that Violent video games are bad for younger kids. In reality it all depends on the child. Its the parents decision if the child is mature enough or not. Of course if the child isn't mature enough the game may cause him fear, but if you think about it the odds of that happening are slim. Its a video game not real life.
afa260ba-2019-04-18T19:36:42Z-00004-000	I will address my opponent's points in the order they were made, but due to character limit I will quote rarely. I apologize for any convenience. 1. ) Prostitution is hurting society in several ways that I will go into below. There is a ban on Prostitution in illegal in at least eighteen countries. There is a purpose in banning Prostitution as once again I will get into below. Prostitution is not a victimless crime as there are child prostitutes, and the human trafficking among other things. 2. ) Not all pimps do the things my opponent describes first off. Also, that's the purpose of a pimp because if he/she gets attacked or raped by a customer then that pimp deals with that John. The legalization of the ‘Bunny Ranch' in Nevada did not prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. Legalization does not remove the dangers associated with Prostitution. 3. ) This would encourage the Gov't to become involved in more unlawful trades. There is no evidence that prostitutes would declare their true earnings from what is a confidential relationship between the worker and his or her client. Therefore, it is likely that the amount of revenue would not be very significant. Germany lawmakers thought the same thing my opponent did when they legalized prostitution and brothels in 2002. By 2004, Germany suffered a budget deficit, and the Federal Audit Office estimated that the government has lost over two billion euros a year in unpaid tax revenue from the sex industry. Proof that my opponent's claim in #3 is false. 4. ) Once again, my opponent is wrong here. Regulation does not solve the problem. Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she/he will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 after being infected if not longer. This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose many of their clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. My opponent also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely if this is their only means of work and or a family to support. So by legalizing Prostitution, the spread of HIV/AIDS will grow, not decrease. 5. ) My pursuit of happiness could be very different from yours. For example, my pursuit of happiness could be murdering people, so it doesn't make it right because I have the right to pursuit happiness. Also, this means the pursuit of, doesn't mean you have the right to get it. 6. ) See Point 5 7. ) Alcohol and Drugs do not have the same problems that Prostitution contains. Alcohol does not give you HIV and drugs don't unless you're sharing dirty needles among other things. My opponent thinks because the prohibition on Prostitution hasn't exactly worked that we should get rid of the laws regarding Prostitution illegal. By that standard, since the laws saying you can't murder or rape people have failed, that means we should get rid of those laws. 8. ) Prostitution is by far not even one of the biggest things gangs fight about. Even back in the 1940's Prostitution was at least third to the mafia after Gambling and Loan sharking. I also point to my remarks in point #7 to go against what my opponent says here. 9. ) My opponent point in #9 for the most part is the same in #8 except funding. If Prostitution was legalized then money could still go to gangs. The Mafia built Las Vegas and so many mafia families made money off the casinos that was LEGAL. The same could be said here once we legalize Prostitution. In fact, by legalizing Prostitution my opponent will have made money to be made for the mafia easier as they will no longer have to avoid the law in order to have Prostitution rings. They will just have to be pay taxes to be legal and even they could still avoid the laws. 10. ) Reducing Prostitution is a worthy cause to use taxpayer's money with. How do you think the mafia was able to bring down Lucky Luciano? Arresting Prostitutes who then snitched on Lucky. . http://en.wikipedia.org... That is only a small example of the use of Police Resources on Prostitution that have helped make society better. 11. ) My opponent is once again comparing drugs and alcohol to Prostitution. I have already pointed out the differences. Prostitution will not be reduced or even halved if it becomes legal, if anything it will increase! Think about it for a moment dear reader, the government has now legalized the right for you to go buy a Prostitute. Before, you would get arrested, get a fine and go to jail, plus face embarrassment but no longer you won't. Now you don't have to worry about that because the police aren't coming after you for that. My opponent point here is a myth to believe that Prostitution would decrease with legalization because in reality it will not only open the doors to a easy business to get started in but a business that makes billions of dollars a year. 12. ) Finally, my opponent has decided to use a final point he likes to use in many of his debates. He has compared Legalizing Prostitution to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. I find it appalling that my opponent has compared such a thing like Prostitution to these atrocities. Having heard the stories of my grandparents from Poland who had fled to avoid Nazi rule, I find my opponent actions here even worse. It is hard also to take away a right you did not have in the first place to address this point. In America, this country as a whole does not have a right to Prostitution as it is not legalized. I also hope it is a sick joke on my opponent's part to tell you that if we don't legalize Prostitution then things like the Holocaust and mass murders will happen but sadly I think he is serious. Some things to point out: 1. ) My opponent has failed to define his terms but I assume he means every single state in the United States of America. 2. ) I have disproven most if not all of my opponent points.
afa260ba-2019-04-18T19:36:42Z-00005-000	1. Prostitutes are not hurting society. They are simply working hard. Naturally, there is no ban on prostitution. It is simply another profession and the capitalist, free government should not hinder this form of work. It is a victimless crime and nobody is hurt. There is no purpose in banning prostitution. 2. One great reason to legalize prostitution: Right now, prostitutes are forced to hire pimps. Pimps are unfortunate. They beat prostitutes and can force them to do whatever they want them to do. But prostitutes are forced to go to pimps for protection. However, prostitutes would be able to go to police if their occupation was legal. This would put abusive, violent pimps out of business. And would get the police to protect their actual citizens. Right now, a prostitute cannot report to the police even if she is raped, because she risks getting arrested. Under legal prostitution, she could be protected by the police instead of abusive pimps. 3. Prostitutes currently make up a sizable amount of the population. If prostitutes were legal, they would provide tax revenue. This is much needed tax revenue, when many governments are low in money and forced to go in debt. 4. Las Vegas legalized prostitution. It works well. There are frequent STD tests. And regulation. Unlike in a state with illegal prostitution. There are illegal prostitutes who have all sorts of STDS, but in Las Vegas, there is regulation. And prostitutes with STDs are forced to go out of business or get cured. This is obviously a better model. 5. The constitution lists a few natural rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These should not be infringed. 6. The constitution restricts government power using the word "not" 24 times. It is obvious that our government is founded upon the princiole of liberty and lack of government infringement in our personal lives and personal tastes. 7. Prohibition has historically been ineffective. Alcohol prohibition did not work. And we should learn from our history. (http://www.cato.org...) The prohibition on drugs is not effective. (http://www.lasvegasmercury.com...) The prohibition on prostitution is not effective anyway. (http://www.echeat.com...) Why would we do something that harms us so much and does not even work? 8. Prohibtion causes underground black markets. Drug dealers and gangs deal their drugs. We saw notorious gangsters and Al Capone with alcohol prohibition. Now, we see gangs and pimps doing prostitution illegally. This is a problem, because allows gangs to fight for territory and other things and unnecessary lives are lost. 9. Prohibtion causes underground black markets. Drug dealers and gangs deal their drugs. We saw notorious gangsters and Al Capone with alcohol prohibition. Now, we see gangs and pimps doing prostitution illegally. Also, prostitution is illegal, so gangs use it as a source of funding. By making prostitution illegal, we are indirectly funding gangs. If prostitution was legalised, no gang would make money from it, because they would be discouraged from it. 10. Prohibition uses much police resources. When we use police to enforce prostitution laws, we use taxpayer dollars to enforce an ineffective, useless, and harmless law. Police could use the resources they use to criminalize prostitutes to protect its citizens from actual harmful things, deeds and people. 11. When the Netherlands ended drug prohibition, drug use was reduced. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org...) The same thing has happened with alcohol prohibtion here in the states. When we legalize prostitution, it is very likely that prostitution will be reduced or even halfed like in the Netherlands with prohibition on drugs. 12. We must fight hard for every single liberty we have. Cambodia, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany all prove this. It is rare when enormous rights are taken away instantly. For example, in Nazi Germany, Jews were forced to wear a gold star and they were cool with that. Then, Jews had to register as such. Hitler, eventually, suspeneded the constitution. And finally, there were concentration camps. When the Jews saw the trucks taking them away, they did not fight, because they were used to the destruction and ignoring of rights and the German citizens accepted it only because it was gradual. This will happen in America if we allow it. It is not unreasonable to believe that if we allow them to take away rights like prostitution rights, they will take away the next right, and the next right, and the next right, until we are finally stripped of all human rights. Protect our human rights! History tells us to fight against every violation of rights! Vote PRO!!!
24195d9e-2019-04-18T19:02:23Z-00001-000	ya as pro says that its parents responsibility. to guide children about things. but children get exposed to certain things of advertisment that they start demanding product. now and then., because advertisment is shown in such a way. they get attracted. to it. 2 In day to day life parents go fo job you cannot have control on child about sayin advertisment product. which they easily get attracted.so things which are not affordable. to spend money on jetstrix video game. wher every child wants when they see advertisment. to spend money on that.they can spend money in something else. which will be useful for them. 3 then why dont they show healthy advertisment about fruits, which is more use ful for children to be nutrient.than obesity to have junk food which they are exposed to advertisment and then get attracted.
dadf6f7e-2019-04-18T14:21:32Z-00003-000	Starting off Con claims that the government did not legalize same-sex marriage because they ‘cared about gays’ but rather because Obama wanted to stay president. This statement shows how little knowledge Con has of the topic. When gay marriage was legalized, Obama was already well into his 2nd term, meaning he could not have ‘stayed President’ for any later than he already would have. Secondly, Obama did not legalize gay marriage, the Supreme Court did [1]. Con then gives his hypothesis on why people are gay, and concedes that what he had just said had no value and, ‘what I said in the previous segment was nothing but my point of view’. Con then moves onto his arguments; that being gay causes depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence. Con fails to link us to any sort of evidence for his claims, therefore his argument can be dismissed as such. I recommend he provide links in the future. Even if we take his argument as true despite the lack of any sort of evidence, the impact of it does not benefit his side, nor harm mine. Why does gays being more likely to have suicidal thoughts have to do with legalizing gay marriage, Con does not explain why gay marriage should be illegal. If anything, we should do everything we can to fix the harm that is being done to gays as Con lists for us, we should therefore legalize gay marriage to at least reduce these problems. Con’s argument is completely negated.In the second argument Con talks about the health risks that are involved with being gay. I still fail to see how this shows that gay marriage should be illegal. Con does not even mention gay marriage, Con needs to stay on topic.In the end, the two arguments Con has presented have had nothing to do with gay marriage being legalized, and both have no impact whatsoever.[1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com...
6f741b27-2019-04-18T14:57:57Z-00004-000	In the acceptance round you say quote " So no semantics and let's just debate whether police should wear riot gear as often as they do or not. " I am not sure as to whether we are debating about the current riots in Baltimore or regular police duties that happens in Baltimore or just common police duties around the World. I don't want to come off as rude I just want to know what I am debating about. If I could get an answer before you start your Round 2 arguments that would be great.
2b8b982c-2019-04-18T11:40:15Z-00000-000	I guess I'll be explaining why standardized test should exist and not be destroyed...First off, let's start off with common logic. You pointed out that standardized test should not exist mainly due to the comparison that is created in a specific social environment. People/societies compare grades, and that causes people to go sad and all.If the comparison is such a big issue in your case, this should mean that ACT, SAT, and other fundamental tests shouldn't exist as well. All these tests could cause comparison, making people sad and angry, too. So should we destroy these type of tests, too?NOPE. Then what defines the luxury of education? Ivy-League schools, which are known for their top colleges and educations, are known for their top education. They look at this test-to-go-to-college tests and determine if you could join their community or not. If we destroy these test-to-go-to-college test, how will they know which students to accept?You may be saying GPA. But think about it. GPA consists of that TESTS that are being graded, which could be COMPARED between students in their class. Seeing this, if we were to destroy standardized test, it would cause so many chaoses in the future.These paragraphs soon conclude the reason that simply COMPARISON isn't the right "support" to back up your claim and that standardized test should not be destroyed***So, IF we were to destroy standardized tests because people compare grades and become sad, it is also reasonable to destroy other fundamental tests such as ACT, SAT, driver's license test, etc, because these tests also cause COMPARISON and make people sad, too. Is this right to every single tests in this world? Nope.Now, let's get down to business. Let's first define what a test is.According to Google dictionary, it says, "a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use." In other words, tests are like a "tryout" or an "audition" to the next level. Tests are basically measuring your ability on a certain subject and determines if you continue your path or not. Now let's start on the first day of school of 7th grade. It is usual that the 7th-grader would know little or no information that will be taught in the school year. (If they do know, then he/she should take classes like honors or classes that could be for high school, or even college, credit.) At the end of the year, the teacher should have thaught all the information that is needed for its student to go to 8th grade. (Again, according to Google dictionary, teacher means, "a person who teaches, especially in a school.") If the teacher didn't teach, then that contradicts the definition of a teacher, which, in other words, should mean that teacher should be fired. (Sorry, the last statement was off topic)Now, to make sure that the student learned all the information that is needed for a 7th grader, they give him/her a test, called a standardized testing. This measures that person's weakness and strengths. So, as the student heads off to 8th grade, the 8th grade teacher are able to know what that particular student is still struggling on and could review it for him/her.Standardizing testing are invented to help you, not to hurt you. It's just that people make it a way that causes hurtness. So really, it's the students that are comparing their scores with other students that should stop. If these students stop comparing and being so sad it, then it would be better.In conclusion, standardized tests should continue.
afc97ee5-2019-04-18T17:00:39Z-00004-000	I think homework is necessary for I improving work ethic and understanding of school material in students. It may take up time of the student's personal lives, but I will argue in the rest of the debate why it i necessary. Now I leave it up to Valdean to make a case.
4c01a52b-2019-04-18T13:24:28Z-00002-000	Pro clarified in the comment section that this debate is to be about the nation of Israel. This is a subject I'm passionate about, having both fought in Operation Enduring Freedom, and as well as stood against the DDO Muslim voting bloc. Contentions C1: Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law As of January 2016, Jews account for 75% of the total population of Israel [1]. Exiling or murdering the majority of the population of a country, would be a significant human rights violation. Further they are a peaceful people, able to live in peace with the 20% Arab population within their land. C2: Right of Might The Six-Day War was an attempt at genocide against Israel, yet while trying to carry this out they only managed to kill as many as 983 Israelis, for as many as 23,500 of their own soldiers [2]. This 23.9 to 1 rate, combined with their habit of targeting schools and other civilian targets, reveals for the enemies of Israel to succeed they would lose at minimum 192.6 million lives from their own side, which is far greater than the total population of the Middle East. C3: They Have Been There for Millennia They are in fact the oldest continuous culture on the planet, having maintained a strong steady presence on the lands in question since several hundred years B.C. [3]. Rebuttals R1: "The Palestinians should get the land because the Jews have been through a lot" This seems like an appeal to pity in favor of the Israelites, rather than their neighbors. R2: Israel "was given a second chance at life." I have no clue what this is referencing, as it was legally recognized as theirs, by the owners of the whole area in 1917, and again in 2022 [4]. R3: "Palestinians had the land and already." This is technically true. Palestinians until recent times referred to anyone from the geographic region, Jew and Arab alike. Beyond that, see source [3]. This claim from pro, only disproves his case when the greater number of Jewish Palestinians at the time is considered. R4: "Jews came and used the God to justify murder and genocide" Proof of this claimed genocide? Conclusion No reason has been suggested for why people who have been there the longest, have the highest population density, and the military might to hold it should, be forced to leave their homes. Sources [1] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [2] http://sixdaywar1967.blogspot.com... [3] http://arabisraeliconflict.info... [4] http://history1900s.about.com...
d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00002-000	Yes but smoking also causes lung cancer and Pregnancy growing slowing down No evidence is needed to just search or look at a smoke packet to see both theses results
289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00000-000	No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.
289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00001-000	I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings
e54363a5-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00008-000	For everyone viewing, This is a continuation to our first debate: https://www. Debate. Org. . . This is now Part 2. Is that video titled "This is your brain on Bandit"? That's what I see. If so, Then what does that have to do with this debate and how does it support your point? To actually reply to your point"Yes, I think people should consume the energy and nutrients that the sun provides like all other living things do. " So people should eat coal? . . . . . . Please picture that in your head. No, Not a good idea to eat coal every single day. Over time, Activated charcoal will adsorb crucial nutrients away from the body, Which could eventually lead to malnutrition. Source: https://www. Eater. Com. . . 1 & 2. Are you speaking for all food or not? If so, I'll say again, Not ALL food is bad. "Saying we can and should give it up is promptly ridiculous. " - well that's exactly what you're doing. You just contradicted yourself. You keep using drugs in this. . . This would be a way more proper debate had you titled this "Drug use" And your Round 1 you said "I do not believe in the use of drugs. " "However, We should live with the slightly bad effects of food. " I'm gonna assume you made a typo on that (correct me if I'm wrong) "should" should be taken out. Now that it's taken out, Don't speak for everybody. Not everyone has bad effects from food. And if a person does have bad affects from food, They can fix it by exercising, Eating healthy and etc. 3. "use" food? "Hey, I'm gonna go use some food, I'm hungry! " Tell me how that sounds. I'm not against you or anyone "using" food, I never said I was. I eat food too. We all do. I said I was trying not to offend you if you did drugs. I don't know if you made a typo "Stop saying that food is a choice" I actually said it's not a choice. But when I look into it further, Sure, Eating food is a choice. You choose to live, Or you choose to starve yourself and make yourself malnourished and eventually die. 4. Explained it up there ^ you got me. You need a cookie! Oh wait. 5. I'm saying exercising will burn the calories away after eating that way it will prevent obesity 6. Okay 7. We aren't plants. We (humans) can't produce photosynthesis and get energy off of that. We get energy from the sun in a different way as you said, But we aren't plants. So who's ignorant now? 8. You need food to live - I'm not saying that you ONLY need food to live but it's one of the big factors. 9. Oh okay looks like you cleared some things up. I thought you were 100% against it. 10. Last debate you said "Food is a choice, And we as a species are making the wrong choice" who's contradicting? My response to that was "We AREN'T making the "wrong choice" 11. You literally said this last debate "I really hate food for all the disease and nuclear war it has caused. " You mentioned nuclear war, Not me. Are you trolling me right now? You're the one who said and even titled the debate "Food is a choice" not me. . . . Yeah I think you're trolling me. I was actually arguing how food isn't a choice but as I thought more into detail, (points 3 and 4) sure, Food is a choice. But food being a choice and drugs being a choice are on two different levels. Key words "being a choice" not drug use and food consumption.
93e5aabc-2019-04-18T17:54:56Z-00008-000	True, but a law against guns would make it more difficult for a "criminal" to get one. There is no getting around it, restricting civilian gun ownership will make it more difficult to gain access to guns.
f4e803ee-2019-04-18T14:42:27Z-00005-000	Imagine my surprise when a debate topic so esoteric as this gets snapped up so quickly, and by some one whom so (by the numbers) out-classes me. Thanks to my contender, and I hope to make a good read. For the Laymen, here. https://en.wikipedia.org... Fencing harkens back to a different time to find its roots; one that doesn’t need electricity to determine a winner. The winner was found by whom is not in a pile of blood on the floor. Through the ages, with the advent of technology, fencing was able to move from definitive winner via pulse to subjective winner with judges. Then, the aid of further technology enabled for even more precision regarding scoring without the unfortunate side effect of death. Currently, “Sport” fencing, or “Olympic” fencing consists of making use of small amperages and voltages to make or break circuits through the “touch” of a simulacra weapon to establish scoring. This descriptor is important: what each fencer holds is a weapon, not some silly scoring device. In its roots, this was a rapier, a proverbial three foot long needle with casual edges at the tip to allow for cuts at range at the wielder’s preference, in addition to the raw piercing power of focusing the attacker’s lunge into one scant hair-sized point. A “touch” was what could reasonable score blood. With the desire to not die, different simulation weapons were adopted. I say all that because there is indeed a spirit of the game. Fencing is not electronic tag. Fencing is a deadly game of deception, aggression and martial prowess. With is current state, it has fallen to us to make use of rule-sets to ensure that the former martial art of sword finesse holds true while making sure that opponents engage in a safe, but ultimately skill based sport. The “Flick” breaks all that. A Flick needs mechanical advantage, withdrawing of the attack to create the “whip” of the Flick, and violates the spirit and potential safety of the opponent. To start, the obvious problem is Safety. The Flick, by its nature, is designed to strike in a place where the attacker is not immediately aiming. A fencing mask protects the wearer from front attack, and side attack. Enclosing the head wholly makes for a variety of new complications, and current rule-sets that allow for the Flick do not consider the back of the skull for concerns. Off target Flicks, have the immediate capacity to strike an opponent where no protective gear is present. A traditional point in line attack, however cannot do this, unless gross incompetence is engaged in by both opponents. This reason alone, I feel, should be the immediate disqualifier for such attack to be able to score, or reasonably thrown to begin with. A Flick requires surrender of Right of Way. Right of way for an attack is established by a threatening posture of the attacker. Quite literally, extending the arm and pointing the weapon at the opponent is considered an attack (usually known as “Point in Line”), and if an opponent should get tagged by such a basic attack while engaging in a counter attack, the action is halted in favor of the person whom first established Right of Way. It is incumbent upon the defender to defend from the attack. If a touch can be made without a parry (blade contact to represent a block of the attack), so be it, however the Flick, because it needs a withdraw of Point in Line to be thrown to be effective, negates itself as an attack, and as such, need not be parried for a counter attack, no matter how slow to the “Time” (explained next) of the match, to be effective. The Flick is “Out of Time”. When fencers engage in flurried or repetitious attacks, a measured beat can be established. An “In Time” attack, parry, or riposte (counter attack from a block) is one that occurs reasonably close to how those beats (attack/parry/riposte) are falling. This is highly subjective, however that is the nature of judging a match: needing to find the in-time strikes and in the case of the Flick, appropriate counter attack. To throw a Flick, the opponent must aim off target, the nature of such indicating no right-of-way, and make use of mechanical advantage and not skill to land a successful touch (score). There is no riposte to a Flick, and that is the point, it evades timing and skill of the opponent through alternate means. The Nuts and Bolts of a Flick: The thrower of the “Flick” is not aiming at the opponent. At all. Sure, the intent is to land the tip of the weapon on the opponent, but that is not the aim. In reality, the thrown attack is some place (any place!) out in space past reasonable parry distance of the opponent, with the hopes that alteration of the arm further to a further out of line stance will then bend the blade in such a fashion it curves “around” the opponent. Ideally, the goal is to distort the current weapon beyond its “spirited” means to score a touch through mechanical advantage. In such a case, its no longer about “Point in Line”. Its about how metallurgically stable your blade can be with attempts to turn a needle into a whip. With regards to a “spirit” of the event, by now, I don’t think I need to belabor it. The initial concept was to run the opponent through, to put your blade, via aiming it, feinting it, and misdirecting the opponent, through the opponent in order to achieve victory. Judges, after the “death” portion of the show was mitigated, were looking to whom would be dead first, this was established by whom attacked first. The rapier is not a whip. Its not a metal device intended to be slung in a circle in order to establish priority. There are far superior weapons for that. The core, the heart of fencing, were two people with appreciation of their lives. They looked each other in the eyes and set about to devise a way in which to skewer each other. The men were separated from the boys for countless centuries based on that ability. I, personally, find it hard to believe that we have devolved in the manner of both prowess and sport to rely not on ability, but on versatility and availability of equipment to demonstrate such. Anecdotal That ht hurts when you do it wrong. I have been on the receiving end of it, many times. I have judged it at my local fencing club, many times. A Flick that lands wrong and on a person has now converted a 3 foot long piece of spring steel into a rat trap, with whatever bits of flesh to snap on as were available as physics indiscriminately chooses. A person that engages in a Flick is hoping beyond hope that the person they deliberately missed on their attack won’t throw an immediate attack in return, AND hopes the judge won’t notice the unsubtle arm and wrist withdrawl needed to complete the attack (which then negates it as an attack). To me, it seems as though the opponents safety is callously disregarded. This part of my argument is solely anecdotal, but I highly doubt is isolated. To learn to "Flick" in which you land where you needed to land, your opponents well being was disregarded. I am confident that while "dry" fencing, my opponent is mindful, and I am confident that my opponent in this debate is equally skilled and mindful of those they practice with and on, that is the nature of skill. I, however, have no desire to use my fellow club fencers as a literal whipping post in order to develop a technique that rely on how well my weapon becomes not the weapon as intended. That attempts to circumvent my fellow club members as fencers, and teaches them nothing, and gives them nothing as a bench mark to clear.That is a reprehensible example to set, and the Flick will have no part in my repetoire because of it.
70d26bcf-2019-04-18T15:47:32Z-00000-000	The sample isn't selected though, the people who want to vote do, and the people who don't want to vote don't. Currently, nobody is saying "you cannot vote if _."Your real argument is it might not be very detrimental to the general public's idea as to who a good president/whatever would be. That's like saying "legalize all guns, not THAT many more people will die."The main thing that motivates people to vote is if they're given the option. I can tell you if someone says it's mandatory to do something that I don't want to do, I won't want to do it. But if they can present good arguments as to why I should, I would be more inclined to.A "forced demographic" is not a variable anymore.Well, thanks for a good debate! Enjoy the rest of your stay!
70d26bcf-2019-04-18T15:47:32Z-00001-000	The goal of an election is to choose the democratically most preferred candidate. Different election types measure preference differently and with varying accuracy but having only a smaller sample of the population vote, and especially by having the sample selected with many biases, leads to unnecessary inaccuracies. This is a fundamental of statistics. If donkey voting can throw off 6% of the result, how much of an effect can having a voter turnout of less than 60% cause? Compulsory voting has other democratic benefits, too, including motivating public interest in political and societal affairs, requiring the government to make sure every person has a chance to vote and motivating politicians to be concerned for every demographic equally.
8532ca4-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00005-000	You mean round three (officially) :) First and formost, the story about the girl who was neglected by her father which shaped her ideas of love, that girl is a very dear friend of mine. I won't give resources on that because I feel I should protect her identity. Her story, regardless of resources provided, proves my point. Even if it were hypothetical (which at this point surely would seem so), proves my point The study about the man who was in an arrianged sexual encounter with an older gay man was in a report entitled Born WHAT Way? By Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. the full article: http://www.biblebelievers.com... This is where I got many of my statistics. And given that they are from a Christian orginization, may seem biased, but let's look at the stats given by the Kinsey Institute and the Kinsey report. First we must understand that Alfred Kinsey was not a Christian, like most scientists, so he clearly had nothing to gain from these reports. Why would a Christian orginization publish some findings of some one who was not Christian? To make their beliefs seem more credible. If someone who was not a Christian found these evidences in people, how can anyone say that it is biased? Also there is a paragraph or two about Sigmund Freud and Richard Isay. Both claimed to have homosexual urges. Sigmund Freud went through a self psychiatric analysis and found that he had greater independence that resulted from him overcoming his homosexuality (in a 1910 letter to Sandor Ferenzci which I was unable to locate the exact letter). Isay on the other hand decided it was best to embrace his homosexuality, pronounce it natural, and divorce his wife and start living as a gay man. the name Sigmund Freud is more recognizable than that of Richard Isay, so how can one refute sigmund freud's claim? The usage of the german child who wears dresses is a good argument and very interesting. hat's off to you for that. however Gender Identity Disorder is in fact a psychological ailment. It is found in the DSM-IV and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders (4th ed). It has been approved by the American Psychiatric Association as a real mental disorder. In saying that I am coming out as saying that I may be inclined to agree with my opp that this could very well be a test from God. On the other hand, that would mean we would both have to catagorize homosexuality as a mental disorder. Is that really fair though? And even if it were catagorized as a mental disorder, there are causes for mental disorders of all kinds. Sometimes they are chemical inbalances, other times like PTSD, caused by events. If homosexuality were not a choice, then it would have to be a mental disorder, most likely akin to PTSD. I would have to ask my opp and any other proponent of sexuality being inborn, if they are comfortable calling it a mental disorder? My opponent basically agreed that there are societal and environmental factors in which sway one to come out and say they were born gay. this is a concession and point goes to me As I stated before I could agree that Homosexuality, like many other temptations, are a test from God. What this boils down to is the temptation and whether or not we choose to fall into that temptation. Therefore, making it even more evident that homosexuality, like all temptation, is a choice. Will my opp please concede? I did not follow the order in which my opp attempted to refute my claims. So in response to the Human Genome Project argument, she says that male homosexuality MAY be inborn, while female homosexuality is not. The word "may" that she used means this is still inconclusive. So the question now is which side do we err on? If it's inconclusive how can so many people be sure it's not a choice. My opponent clearly did not understand the argument about the link between homosexuality and abuse. I never stated that homosexuality was the only response to abuse. Please concede this point The pop culture reference I made was a very good one and my opps response was very good. Accepting yourself for who you are is certainly not a bad thing. I fully support that. However the message Gaga sends is vastly different than reality. She says accept your homosexuality because you were born that way, not accept your homosexuality because you chose to be this way. And while I would normally be inclined to agree with my opp that Lady Gaga's overall message is to just be happy with who you are no matter what the problem you face is, I have Spina Bifida. It is a physical defect which you are actually born with. I have never seen Gaga throw any support towards the Spina Bifida Association or any other cause other than the LGTB groups. This clearly shows that Gaga is 100% for the gay community (not a bad thing) and her message of being ok with who you are is for the gay community only. Her messages are 100% pro-gay and promote the belief that you are born gay (if you are infact gay) Finally my opp addressed suicides among gay youth. She said if one was bullied for being gay and it was a choice, why cant they turn away from it? The answer is simple. Who said they wanted to? There are evidences which I have provided that state that you CAN turn from it. But the kids who are bullied may not want to turn from being gay. This is evidenced by a kid with glasses who gets called four eyes and is teased for wearing glasses. He has the option at some point to get contacts does he not? Or a red haired kid who is teased for having red hair. He could just dye it couldn't he. A fat person (which is almost always a choice) gets teased for being fat. He has the option to work out, change is eating habits and lose weight. Bullying is universal and not just limited to gay people. The overall bottom line to this arguement is people get bullied for various reasons and more often than not there is the choice to change a behavior.
8532ca4-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00006-000	Firstly, my opponents mentions the Human Genome Project and claims there has been no findings of a gay gene. However, recent reports say otherwise: . http://www.medicaldaily.com... Male homosexuality may actually be genetic while female homosexuality is more questionable at this point. My opponent also mentions that many people may turn to homosexuality as a result of child abuse. This is also inaccurate as statistics in the US about child abuse are estimated at 16% for male sexual abuse and 27% for female sexual abuse. Only about 1.51% of the US population identifies as homosexual. . http://www.pandys.org... More common consequences of child abuse and neglect include shaken baby syndrome(only if the child in question is a young baby obviously), impaired brain development, depression, anti-social behaviour, alcohol/drug abuse, abusive behaviour themselves, and other. . http://www.childwelfare.gov... My opponent mentions a university study about a homosexual man turning straight after therapy. He has failed to provide sources therefore we know nothing about the man. Was he displaying homosexual traits in his behaviour from a young age? Was his mother pressuring him to be homosexual from a young age? These all of course bring up another point worth mentioning. Many children from a young age show traits that are perceived as being "homosexual". Just very recently there was a five year old boy in Germany being teased for wearing dresses by his own free will. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Unless this is just a simple case of a child ignoring gender roles(which most children wouldn't really even grasp the social concepts surrounding these in the first place) it's likely he is either homosexual or transsexual. If a child was doing such things after puberty then there could be a case perhaps that homosexuality is a choice, but this boy is pre-pubescent from what I understand. As for people "switching" their orientation maybe they were never truly homosexual in the first place and maybe bisexual? However, both my opponent and I agreed that bisexuality will not be discussed in this debate. My opponent then goes on to mention how the numbers of people claiming to be born homosexual has risen over the years. One factor contributing to this could be the fact that now with homosexuality becoming more and more accepted more people are willing to be open about these kinds of things. As we all know society evolves and so do the values represented in society. Next my opponent mentions the religious perspective. It is pretty much universally accepted among all religions that God is loving. Now one may be wondering that if God is loving why would he make gay people and then condemn them? There can be a pretty simple answer to this; just like how unmarried straight people are expected to control their urges the same could be said for homosexuals as well. Maybe it's just another test from God? Lastly, my opponent mentions pop culture and it's perceived affect on gay culture. One notable example used is Lady Gaga. While she does have many songs with pro-gay messages she does represent the overall general message of just being yourself. THis is an overall positive message and shouldn't be blamed for people "becoming gay". If they did so then they wouldn't be "being themselves" as Lady Gaga says now would they? As for suicides and bullying, if one chose to be gay wouldn't they just stop being gay so the bullying would stop? Yet they don't. Why? Is it because they can't help who they're sexually attracted to? I certainly think it could be a major factor. I now hand the reins over to my opponent. Good luck in round 2!
dc71f322-2019-04-18T19:06:18Z-00000-000	I would like to open again thanking my opponent for this debate. While I am sure it did not go as he originally pictured, it has been a fun debate. Gratitude aside, my opponent opened up his argument to attack on several fronts in his last round, and so I shall try to capitalize on as many of those opportunities as possible. =====Rebuttals===== "Although it is always tempting to dismiss arguments one cannot refute as irrelevant, my examples in this case are completely relevant, because they reveal where the burden of proof lies." Disregarding the presumptuous nature of this first statement, my opponent seemingly has yet to grasp the fundamental basics of the debate structure. Pro has the burden of proof unless the debate is specifically set up with other conditions. This debate was not set up with those conditions, thus my opponent must take on the burden of proof. "These examples explain exactly how ridiculous it is to place the burden of proof on me to disprove the link between autism since as yet none has been observed, and so the link takes its due place among the invisible unicorns, teapots, and Flying Sphagetti Monsters of the universe." Once again, no matter how "ridiculous" it may seem to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim, the burden remains the same. Furthermore, my opponent has brought forth a logically flawed argument on two fronts. First, simply because a connection has not been observed does not negate the existence of such a connection. "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them." [1] The classic example of my opponent's logic failing is the lack of knowledge in regards to the harms and dangers of smoking. For decades, the problems of smoking were not understood or ever realized. It was until further inspection that a connection was revealed. Second, my opponent's connection from vaccination side effects to invisible unicorns and other such examples is equivocation in that they are not relationally the same, thus rendering his comparison is void making is initial examples non-topical. Now moving away from the more semantical working of debate to the substance of the debate, my opponent presented three studies regarding the lack of observable link from vaccination to autism. While they are neat reports, my opponent's argument here is far from sound on many fronts. First, my opponent's reports only address the MMR vaccination. This limitation in study simply underscores the lack of information in regards to the studies of vaccines and their potential link to autism. Due to this lack of information, no conclusions can be drawn from the existing information, rendering my opponent's arguments immaterial. Second, assumptions are the single greatest flaw in any sound argument. "... it should be assumed that this link does not exist." Until it is scientifically proven that no link exists between vaccination and autism, it cannot and should not be assumed that there is no possible link. Third, two of my opponent's sources are far from conclusive by their own admission. From my opponent's second resource; "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed." [2] In the report's synopsis, it is concluded that more reports are needed to reconcile the conflicting data that was found. Then, in my opponent's third source, it is brought forth that autism and it's risk factors are not completely understood and that while genetics seem to play a significant role in the onset of autism, a number of other factors may also be involved. [3] Furthermore, the third study is a population based study, meaning that the data was collected from patients that devolved autism and their vaccination status. This again underlines the fact that no study has been undertaken to seriously consider the potential of vaccines causing autism. This lack of information and the conflicting information all serve to render my opponent's claim baseless and thus void. Finally, from the Autism Society of America, "There is no known single cause for autism..." "...It also appears that some children are born with a susceptibility to autism, but researchers have not yet identified a single "trigger" that causes autism to develop." "Still other researchers are investigating problems during pregnancy or delivery as well as environmental factors, such as viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to environmental chemicals." [4] It is clear that despite our current level of medical science, we are still unable to determine the cause(s) of autism. It is again this lack of understanding that simply demonstrates that no conclusions can be drawn as to the potential link between autism and vaccination. =====Conclusion===== Disregarding the first two rounds in which my opponent begrudging took up his role as the affirmative in this debate, when the debate boiled down to actual information, my opponent was unable to present a solid argument to support his claim. It is the lack of information coupled with conflicting results and assumptions that prevents my opponent from creating a sturdy backing for his resolution. Due to the lack of support for my opponents claim, it is only natural for it to fail, and thus the resolution "Vaccines do not cause autism" is negated." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [3] http://books.google.com... [4] http://www.autism-society.org...
bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00003-000	Racism & Poverty: Nothing for me to rebut here, any concerns Con raises here would be solved through legalization as well. Why Legalization Won’t Work:Crime: Con begins by focussing on stats coming out of California. However, there is a large problem doing this. Marijuana for recreational use is not legal in California. In fact, California’s marijuana laws are closer to Con’s plan than mine. In California, marijuana (for recreational use) is often considered a “misdemeanor” and punishment is done via fines, not jail time. (1) This is much like (if not exactly like), “The United States...should eliminate its mandatory minimum sentencing reduce the crime of possession of Marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor.” So for this reason, any arguments Con made based on statistics from California should be ignored. However, it still is worth rebutting the point with stats from areas where marijuana for recreational use is legal. Con starts off saying that legal marijuana would only drop 4.4% in price from the black market. First of all, that alone should end illegal drug use, since it’s cheaper and safer, so no rational person would still try to buy illegal marijuana. Second, Con’s source (http://www.rand.org...) never even states that there would be a 4.4% drop in the price of legal marijuana. Another problem with this assertion, is that marijuana on the black market doesn’t have a typically agreed upon rate. It highly depends on the dealer, the situation, quality, etc. What we can be certain of though, is that with legalization in Colorado, price of marijuana has only been getting lower and lower, despite still growing as an industry, which would further kill any remaining black market. (2) Overall though, Con’s main point is that crime will increase if marijuana is legal. However, the facts from Colorado and Washington dispute this. Both states have seen a drop in violent crime, since legalization (on top of the obvious decrease in marijuana related arrests). (3, 4) That is the complete opposite of Con’s claim that legal marijuana will increase violent crime, which as mentioned above was dependent on stats from a state where marijuana isn’t even legal for recreational use. Seeing as I have shown data from states where marijuana is legal to disprove Con’s claims, which relied on data from a state where marijuana isn’t legal for recreational use, I have successfully disproved Con’s claims regarding crime. Schooling: Con essentially argues here that marijuana use will increase if marijuana is legal, specifically among younger people. First off, Washington hasn’t seen an increase in marijuana usage among youth, since it has become legal. (5) One of the main reasons is that marijuana would still be illegal for those under 18 years of age. There are also some problems with the medical marijuana related study Con cited from the NBER. They (http://www.nber.org...) claim they got their information from the 2004-2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. However, if you actually look at that, it tells a different story (see the below graphs). (6) This data suggests very little difference in usage, over the time period. On top of that, another study regarding medical marijuana legalization and teen usage from experts from various universities, also shows little change in teen marijuana usage. (7) However, marijuana use has been for the most part increasing in the country since the War on Drugs among teens (as shown in my argument last round, Education is Superior to Bans), even though the opposite has been shown in alcohol and tobacco. Same argument here, it would be better to raise awareness about the dangers of marijuana and help those who abused it, than expect that simply banning it will be the best way to solve high usage. The money for that can even be found from taxes from marijuana sales (from my argument Taxation). Sources: 1- http://www.canorml.org... 2- http://time.com... 3- http://www.drugpolicy.org... 4- https://www.drugpolicy.org... 5- http://www.drugpolicy.org... 6- https://www.whitehouse.gov... 7- http://blogs.chicagotribune.com...
9c362b23-2019-04-18T16:27:12Z-00003-000	I believe that you should not control guns, but control the lunatics and the criminals. If you take guns away from law following people then they can't protect themselves from bad people. When someone's house is getting robbed first thing there gonna do is call someone with a gun. Criminals will always find away to get guns. Ban guns and then it would be mayhem. Remember prohibition? When alcohol was banned a whole new industry dedicated to smuggling and murder was born. Ban guns and it will be the same.
8d3589f8-2019-04-18T16:08:36Z-00005-000	I accept my opponent's challenge, and hope we can understand the importance of the issue at hand.1. Born that wayThis is an often an argument presented. To be "born that way" it must be in your genes, which makes you who you are. "Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings"; and "They found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about 1 in 5 twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother also. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2%. Interesting enough, Bailey and Pillard found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%" [1]. First, if homosexuality is genetic then it should be 100% with identical twin, who share all the same genes. Second, "The concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%" [1]. Homosexuality just like those other things are due to heavy environment influence. Further, Homosexuality being genetic poses a real problem with natural selection. Natural Selection is "the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" [2]. Since, homosexuals can't reproduce with each other how then could they pass on their genes? They couldn't, so natural selection would have "selected" them out of the gene pool. Concluding, homosexuals are not born that way any more than people are born religious or racist.2. ReligionI think my opponents reference about loving everyone is about Matthew 22:39, which states "And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" [3]. This is based on a misinterpretation. Honestly, there are lots of things I do that, I hate, and that part I don't love about myself. Which is where the famous phrase "hate the sin not the sinner", because I will treat everyone with respect, but I can still hate actions they do; This would be loving thy neighbor like I love myself. Further, if we are suppose to love everyone no matter what should we also endorse incest, or polygamy because this same conversation could be used to support either of those even those both of those are condemned in the Bible? Also, wouldn't that also mean I would have to love, without passing judgement, a child molester or rapist? If it does, this is certainly no religion that would ever want be serious because it pardons everyone from their sins without punishment. Concluding, the bible doesn't say love everyone no matter who or what they are.3. Marriage is more than love "Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [4]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [4] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [4]Sources[1] http://www.fairmormon.org...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://biblehub.com...[4] http://www.scribd.com...
e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00002-000	My opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. "Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis." [2]"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women." [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, "Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats." In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? "Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked." [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies."Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk." [5] "In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb." [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case."The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects." [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: "When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren’t much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine)." [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that "more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products." This is no problem. "Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor." [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com...
4716187-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00005-000	Many people abuse their first amendment rights to freedom of religion. When getting an exception from vaccinations for their child, parents don't have to explain the reasoning behind their religious refusal towards getting the vaccine. The merely have to state that they have a religious objection and are allowed off the hook whether they believe in that certain religion or not. (www.patheos.com) Not only this, but there are several mainstream religions that don't believe vaccinations are wrong, including Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The Catholic Church believes there is no good or proper reason to refuse a vaccination against a dangerous and contagious disease. (www.whyimmunize.org.) Not vaccinating a child can affect more than just that child, and can endanger the lives of those around them. 29% of deaths of children between 1 to 59 months of age are vaccine preventable. This puts other children at risk of a lethal disease if someone chooses to not vaccinate their child (www.vaccinestoday.eu.) Measles is an extremely contagious airborne disease that lives in the air for 2 hours, making it unavoidable to breathe in (www.vaccinestoday.eu.) In 2008, a 7 year old boy's parents refused to get him vaccinated for the measles. He then infected his 9 year old sister and 3 year old brother, both of which were also not vaccinated for the disease. This then lead to 11 other children being infected, and 48 children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined for 21 days. (www.webmd.com)
4716187-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00006-000	Vaccinations such as hepatitis B are unnecessary because as stated by professionals on VacTruth.com, "As of March 2012, disturbingly there were over 1500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), some of those classified also as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In addition to a high number of deaths, there were a total of 66,654 adverse events reported to VAERS, including but not limited to brain inflammation, convulsions, multiple sclerosis, headaches, irritability, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Guiilain-Barre Syndrome." (vactruth.com) Dr. Meryl Nass stated: "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." The First Amendment clearly grants all citizens of the United States of America freedom to practice whichever religion they choose. Many citizens" beliefs are against allowing people to receive vaccinations. By forcing American citizens to vaccinate their children and themselves, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) All fifty states require vaccinations to enter public schools, but 48 of them allow exemptions for religious reasons for this very reason! When students enroll, all they have to do is have their parent or guardian fill out a form stating that they do not allow the student to receive vaccinations because of religious reasons. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) The college of Physicians of Philadelphia stated "Certain religions and belief systems promote alternate perspectives toward vaccination. Religious objections to vaccinations are based generally on" beliefs that the body is sacred, should not receive chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means." (Historyofvaccines.org)
dd068049-2019-04-18T17:07:24Z-00004-000	I am not even sure what this is but I think con is arguing that teachers should not be replaced with technology. I am not sure whether I am pro or con for this issue as I have never really come across it before, but for the sake of arguing I shall accept. My arguments: Teachers are annoying: Not really a good argument I know but nevertheless I shall use it. During my adolescent existence I have never once met a teacher that was not annoying, I have come across children who's learning has been disrupted by the teachers, not themselves. Teachers possess many qualities that could be described "annoying" to a pupil, such as an annoying voice or bad breath, a computer on the other hand would not possess such tendencies and would not distract pupils from learning. Teachers are biased: This is true, many teachers have personal preferences, they often pick out children who have misbehaved in the past and always assume that they are to blame for the present situation, however if a computer was to take control then it would not have personal preference like a human teacher would. So all disputes and problems would be resolved, and not one guilty individual would go unpunished. Computers have the internet: The internet is the biggest source of information on earth, it outranks the human mind significantly and would be able to give much more in-depth and correct lessons in the process. Having the internet in computers to teach children would be a lot easier than researching things from textbooks. Teachers could become sick/Quit/spontaneously die: A human teacher could call in sick (Or lie about being sick) Or a teacher may quit, or a teacher may get hit by a bus, a computer on the other hand would do none of these things (The worse that could happen would be that a computer might break, but they are easily repaired) With a computer there would be no need for supply teachers, or lessons being cancelled. Sources: http://www.christenseninstitute.org...

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.