Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 11

ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00004-000

Well, we meet again. If we were to prevent MLB players from entering the Hall of Fame because they used steroids; nearly every All-Star from 1980 to early 2000's would be ineligible. Take a look at the Mitchell Report, and you will find a list of incredible players which is far too long to list on here, who would all be banned from baseball's greatest honor. Steroids were just as part of the game during the 80's and 90's as Peanuts and Cracker Jacks. It was an era of steroids. If you weren't using them, then you were considered abnormal. You cannot fault an entire generation of players for just being a product of the times. I agree that records, such as the HR record broken by Bonds, should have an asterisk with them, but this should not be the case with the Hall of Fame. If we were to do what you propose, then from 1980 to 2000 there would be about 5 people in the Hall.

ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00005-000

Any athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs and has a good career should not be able to make the hall of fame. This includes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and all the other players that used them. I believe that if you use these you are getting an advantage that everyone else isn't. They didn't hit all these home runs off of there pure talent and skills, they needed a booster to get where they are and they cheated. They should never be able to be among the Hall of Fame electors like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron who did it with out performance enhancing drugs.

7586cae6-2019-04-18T11:18:51Z-00000-000

While you're right that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus, How do you or anyone for the matter have a say in this? You think making it illegal is going to solve ANYTHING? People are still going to have abortions whether it's legal or not and wouldn't it be better for it to be done the medical way? Besides, Abortions being legal doesn't necessarily mean that all the fetuses are going to die. It gives woman the option to chose and abortions are still very unlikely then. Abortion should be legal both for medical reasons and because it has nothing to do with you. Better safe than sorry.

f782b359-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00003-000

Before I begin I would like to say that I myself am an avid ballet dancer. I value dance too highly to call it a sport. Jake Vander Ark says the following about the difference between dance and sports: "In sports, the objective is to win... tossing a toy back and forth to accomplish mindless objectives. ... In sports, winning is the endgame. players win so they can win so men can buy beer and congratulate each other for sitting in front of a TV, cheering on athletes... who provide meaningless entertainment that artificially heightens emotion. I can't think of anything lower. And dance is anything but low." Calling dance something other than a sport does not degrade its difficulty or its value, it actually heightens it.

9bd41de6-2019-04-18T19:45:25Z-00000-000

First, I'd like to point out that my opponent has dropped every point but the point about taxes. So, I will only be focusing on this in the final round, and you can assume that the CON won those points, since he obviously has no response. Right here, since he didn't flow thorugh with the other issues, I should win on a basic cost-benefit analysis. But I'll show you why he's wrong about taxes before letting you get to the vote. "I'm not saying stop taxing companies completely. I'm saying that the government needs to roll back the taxes on corporate America. The economy is a trickle-down effect. When corporate America can operate and grow the economy, jobs are created and prosperity blooms. It is the upper class that runs the businesses that the lower class works. " Supply-side economics are no guarantee. You also brought up that taxing more is bad because of the recession. BUt, individuals (both people and companies) tend to spend less during recessions, which only makes matters worse. So, if we get more money to the government for programs so they can SPEND THAT MONEY, it actually helps the problems of the recession. You see, the government is pretty much guaranteed to spend that money. So, it's not making the recession worse at all to tax. "Of course they're still going to outsource. Do you know how much cheaper it is to do business outside of the United States? Why do you think the private sector continues to outsource? It's because our government over-taxes and over-regulates corporate America. " You just contradicted yourself. You said that they'd still outsource with or without taxes, and then you say taht they outsource because of taxes. Which is it? The fact of the matter is, you're blaming outsourcing on overtaxing (when you haven't even given numbers as to this overtaxing), when they'll do it either way. Things like this are why Obama wants some regulation. "Again, you didnt read closely enough. I didnt say taxing was marxist. I said redistribution of wealth was and is marxism. You cannot dispute that fact. " And you missed the point of my original argument. It's not a redistribution of wealth. It's taxing so we can pay for government programs. That's basic. And I'm glad that you brought up that Wall Street Journal article, because you obviously didn't read it. It's just paraphrased. Actually, you didn't even paraphrase it, did you? No. You took the paraphrasing from Cato at Liberty, which is the blog of the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think-tank. Here's the page you got it from: . http://www.cato-at-liberty.org... So. .. You're basically taking something out of context that a BIASED THINK TANK took out of context. Here's the real article is: . http://online.wsj.com... It's of course talking about his plan to deal with social security. This is my favorite part: "His proposal would be a very large tax hike, yet it won't be enough. " It continues: "Mr. Obama's plan fixes less than half of Social Security's long-term deficit, making further tax increases inevitable. The Policy Simulation Group's Gemini model estimates that Mr. Obama's proposal, if phased as Mr. Obama suggests, would solve only part of the problem. A 10 year phase-in, for example, would address only 43% of Social Security's 75-year shortfall. And this is assuming that Congress would save the surplus from the tax increases -- almost $600 billion over 10 years -- rather than spending it, as Congress does now. " I'll let you read the rest of it for yourself. So, you see, the problem isn't that the taxes are messing things up, as you're trying to imply. In fact, the problem is that the taxes aren't enough! If anything, it would require more taxes! Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent only has the point of taxes left going into Round Four, and this doesn't even flow through. He used his sources out of context and wrong, when in fact they supported a point contrary to what he was trying to get across. Even if you want to accept a few of his points, even if you think that Obama isn't the right choice for president, he has, in no way, proven that Obama is irrational.

52024653-2019-04-18T13:52:27Z-00003-000

I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.

a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00000-000

At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O

573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00004-000

Hello. The reason my opponent votes negative on Animal Testing is because animals do not deserve the cruelties put upon them. However, my opponents alternative is flawed for the following reasons. 1. It is essential in scientific and technological advances. As long as pain and suffering for the animals is minimized, I believe that it is acceptable to use testing on animals as opposed to having humans go through the same process. That said, it is very impractical to have humans endure these tests. 2. It would prevent any harmful side-effects had the testing been done on humans. The ethics is questionable. However, it is widely believed that the value of a human is MUCH greater than the value on an animal. It is undebatable that we, as people, would rather have someone else do something. As long as everyone accepts this fact, there are no ethical dilemmas. In summary, I believe that animal testing is VERY desirable and the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits of using them as opposed to human beings. My opponents argument is loose and the alternative is impractical and may cause danger to human beings.

17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00005-000

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. We must ask why climate has changed in the past. There are many ways the Earth's climate can be affected. Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms. It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change. It's like saying humans can't start brushfires because they happen naturally. In this day we are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an increasingly rapid rate. During the Cretaceous period submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup also resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents[1]There has been evidence that suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today in some parts of the globe like the North Atlantic. However, evidence also suggest that in some places were much cooler than today, such as the tropical pacific. When the warm places were averaged out with the cool places, it is clear that the overall warmth was probably similar to the early mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions[2]. Further evidence suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.[3] Here is the temperature pattern of the MWP vs today. The carbon plants collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently. Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line.C02 does help plants, yet an abundance of it is harmful. Here is only 2 examples out of many.1.Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis[4] in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage[5] to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat[6]. 2. As is confirmed by long-term experiments[7], plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit Please see the video on the right for more information http://www.youtube.com...There is evidence that shows humans are the cause of global warming Here is the first 5 of "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"[8] 1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year[9]. Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. 2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [10]. 3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide [11]. 4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [12]. 5.So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". [13][14][15]This shows that temperature is cyclic.A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The Resolution is affirmed. Sources[1] Caldeira, K., and Rampino, M.R., 1991, The mid-Cretaceous superplume, carbon dioxide, and global warming: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 18, no. 6, p. 987-990.[2]http://books.nap.edu...[3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[4]http://resources.metapress.com...[5]http://www.pnas.org...[6]http://www.sciencemag.org...[7]http://www.nature.com...[8]http://www.skepticalscience.com...[9]http://cdiac.ornl.gov...[10]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[11]Ibid[12]http://www.sciencemag.org...[13]http://www.nature.com...[14]http://spiedl.aip.org...[15]http://www.eumetsat.eu...

934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00000-000

Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...

934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00001-000

There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...

6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00000-000

con

d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00000-000

Many thanks to my opponent for engaging with me in this debate. Before I get into my defense, I'd like to suggest that this structure NOT be used again in the future. Most debates that utilize Round 1 for acceptance-only consist of four rounds. I didn't notice that this debate was only three. As such, the fact that I cannot respond to Pro's rebuttal of the first group of arguments is highly frustrating. It essentially becomes a 1-round debate considering we are not able to engage in a back and forth, but merely try and predict what our opponent's arguments would be and address them before they are even made. Hopefully the audience is capable of assessing which points of mine were not adequately refuted or completely dropped without me having to point them out...Though I will respect the rules and not respond to the arguments, I would like to point out Pro's mistake in saying I have misrepresented my statistics. I do not trust the audience to check the link, so for their convenience I will post exactly what I said and what the link says in order to prove that it is Pro who is in fact mistaken. I'll copy and paste exactly what I said and exactly what the source says verbatim to demonstrate that my numbers were correct. In R1, I wrote "While 23% do take out loans..." and Pro says that this is not true. He writes, "While her source says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans." Of course I did not misrepresent anything considering the source says, "On average, the money to pay for the typical student's college costs came from the following sources: parents' income and savings (32 percent), student borrowing (23 percent)..." As you can see, I did not misrepresent anything -- student borrowing refers to student loans. That said, I'll address the final 2 arguments that I am allowed to defend. 1. I've argued that tax payer money can be put towards better use, including (but not limited to) our massive debt. Pro completely dropped this argument and instead talked about how public transportation can save us money on oil specifically. While overall less gas might be consumed, that doesn't mean that the money will belong to the government who can therefore put it toward other things (like social security, etc.), therefore this point was not actually refuted. Furthermore, while it's true that people cannot walk or bike everywhere necessary, it's also true that public transportation is not always convenient. Therefore there are pros and cons to both means of transport, but this doesn't explain why college students in particular should get "free" rides at tax payer's expense. 2. The more important argument is this: I've contended that free transportation services would increase use. This is seemingly obvious. Consider when Oprah partnered with KFC to give away free grilled chicken. Obviously a LOT of people capitalized on that offer, though when it's not free, there is nowhere near the same demand for the product when people have to pay for it themselves. However, Pro writes that this is "Not the case if only college students are given free transportation." I don't see how that makes any sense; obviously if something is free it's going to be more appealing and thus have more demand (so you'd need more supply to meet it) - even if it's just college students. Over 18 million people are in college [4], which means you'd have to accommodate a lot more people seeking "free" rides. Pro also writes, "The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full." In that case, I don't even see the point of implementing this considering most would not even be able to utilize the free ride if it's a first-come, first-serve basis and supply stays the same. [4] http://howtoedu.org...

7e9a67d8-2019-04-18T18:39:39Z-00001-000

Arguments extended

c42f2f5f-2019-04-18T17:23:19Z-00005-000

I am Justin. I am against abortion. I believe it is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. I will not mince words, nor will I worry about offending anyone, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint. Opening Statement:I believe, personally, that it abortion should not only be illegal, but it should be unthinkable. Women are not entitle to make decisions that endanger other humans' lives. The babies that are destroyed through abortion have the same Constitutional rights as the mother. If a woman chose to have sex, then she, without a doubt, has the responsibility to give birth to the child, no matter the pain or discomfort caused her. If a woman is raped, then I believe she should have the child as well, so long as it's not life threatening. There are many options for putting a child up for adoption, so the child after birth does not have to influence the mother's lifestyle. If a mother is raped, and will not survive giving birth to the child, I believe the mother is morally obligated to have the child, but should not be legally obligated. However, I do not believe that this, almost invisibly small, percentage of women justify making all abortions legal. Thank you. On to round 2.

c42f2f5f-2019-04-18T17:23:19Z-00006-000

My name is Roger Robbins, I am 15 years old, I am a liberal Democrat living in the U. S. A. . I have a 4.2 GPA, I am a Junior in high school, I am an adolescent volunteer coordinator for a convalescent hospital, and I have a minimum wage job that helps me save for college. I ask that my opponent uses the first round as a personal introduction for them self, and gives a very general/direct statement that summarizes their opinion on abortion. The following debate should be structured using three different questions, where each should be answered in their designated round: Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U. S. A. ? Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Round 4: Is abortion necessary? These questions do not have to be the entire basis for your argument, but they should at least be acknowledged to help keep structure within our discussion. As for my opening statement I want to be clear that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Abortion should remain legal in all states because women are entitled to make their own decisions, especially regarding their health. Revoking a woman of her ability to do what she wishes with her body is a violation of her constitutional rights, and in some cases disrespectful. Making a woman give birth to a child she does not want, is making her endure pain for an act that she may or may not have had control over. Forcefully making a woman's life change because you do not agree with her beliefs is not your business nor your responsibility. I do not believe that women should use abortion as birth control, however I more strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for me to force my beliefs upon another person, especially to the extent of changing their life. It is a woman's life, a woman's child, a woman's body, a woman's motherhood, and ultimately a woman's choice.

288d2392-2019-04-18T18:21:20Z-00003-000

i AcCepT. i DoNt KnOw WhO tHinKs CorN iS hEaLtHy bEcaUz iT is NoT. Is tHiS a QuEsTioN Or DeBaTe? tHe pRo iS a mOroNic IdIot. vOtE cOn. iCe CrEaM iS tHe MoSt HeLtHy aNd TaStY fOoOd beCuz it LoWeRs YoUr blOdOD pReSSSuUre aNd hAs No suGar. iT iS aWesoMe lIkE hOw gOoGlE iS eVil anD wIll TaKe oVeR tHe WoRlD! sOrCes: www.tinyurl.com/debateDDO

1dff01c3-2019-04-18T15:47:07Z-00002-000

You chose to rebut only the part of my argument that was concerning the side effects of smoking. That's sad. In fact, I have not only proved that second hand smoke is harmful and the payment of cigarettes is destruction to people's lives and to some families too [1], but also how smoking is basically suicide and homicide (do we want that for our country? ), how many kids smoke underage and that is illegal (why not ban it altogether? ), all the traits to how smoking is bad for your health (why would we let people fall into this trap and then die early because of a leaf? ), how people who start smoking always become addicted and drug addictions are never good, how 70% all smokers want to quit and only 7% can (why not ban it if most users regret their choice of trying a cig? ), how something that looks 'good' is not always 'right,' etc. etc. You only chose to try to rebut a fifth of my argument. By the way your sources aren't showing up. I will use common sense and sources in my rebuttals: "So you are claiming the feeling from smoking is being wrongly interpreted by the body, I don't think so, you are experiencing the chemicals in the cigarette such as dopamine [2] that helps control the brains pleasure centre, this is no illusion, it is physically happening to the body. Also, as I've said before people are aware of the risks, its not your place to determine what they should or should not do about their bodies. " Exactly: if people are aware of the risk, why should we let them go ahead and ruin themselves? It like secret suicide. Because it started off as a trend (in the early 1900s until it was condemned in the '80s) but it has stayed an option for people who don't believe smoking is actually that bad for you. Smoking doesn't relieve stress in any way, that is a myth. [2] If I was going to pull a Mr. Incredible and try to save someone from attempting suicide, would you let me? Same concept. "Is this really a reason to ban smoking, that is poor. " I was giving reasons why smoking should not be allowed. .. "As for asthma, the fact that second hand smoke can trigger attacks is not reason enough to justify banning cigarettes overall, people should be more wildly educated about these facts, this is the way to really solve problems not just banning everything. " Smoking just makes other people miserable, that's all. As I said, it not only triggers asthma attacks but is bad for anyone who breathes the smoke in. It's really useless for you to try and refute the health related arguments of mine. Please don't even. You CANNOT compare video games, or even caffeine, to the drug called tobacco! It is such a lame way to say smoking should not be banned (your summary was literally comparing video games to smoking). Nevertheless I will rebut: "Video games, like smoking are very addictive. Video games, like smoking can have negative health effects if you become addicted. " What are these negative health effects, staring at a screen too long therefore slight worsening of eyesight? I think you should debate whether video games cause violence or not. That would be a better suit for you. Do video games cost money for every level as smoking does for every pack? Do video games make your lungs fail you? Do video games hurt others as well? No no and no. It is not a good comparison in any slightest way. You act like smoking is the most innocent thing one could do. Looking forward to the last round. It would be nice to have a rebuttal for the videos I posted, too. SOURCES [1] . http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com... [2] . http://www.answers.com...

446827c7-2019-04-18T19:22:02Z-00001-000

Extend all previous arguments. Vote PRO. It's the only way to go.

d042d2ac-2019-04-18T16:39:54Z-00004-000

DefinitionsReaganomics - The economic policy of the Reagan Administration a.k.a. trickle down economics. Specifically, a policy that revolves around cutting taxes for the rich in order for the wealth to disseminate to the poor. Also, a policy that cuts spending on domestic services.Significant- important; of consequence.Pros CaseI.Reaganomics harms the economy"For half a century – from the depths of the Great Depression until the rise of Ronald Reagan – the U.S. government invested in building the nation and funding key research. And the country flourished. But Reagan then reversed those priorities." - Robert Parry.For this debate, I will be addressing 4 characteristics of the economy that are usually very good indicators as to whether or not your economy is thriving: GDP growth, Income/wage growth, and job growth.Reaganomics helps none of these(A) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to GDP growth.In '63, taxes from the rich were cut from nearly 90%, to about 35%. With trickle down economic theory, it's dipped as low as 28%. If this policy was an effective one, we would see an obvious general upward trend of our national GDP, with a correlation coefficient close to -1. Observe the following graph. (1) As you can see, there is no obvious trend. Yes the economy did boom initially, but almost immediately recessed. Under Clinton, taxes for the rich were raised, and the economy strengthened. When Bush Jr. stepped into office, and taxes for the rich were again slashed, the economy quickly recessed again (the 2008 recession). The correlation coefficient between Tax cuts and GDP is actually .3, meaning that it is slightly indicitave of a negative trend.(B) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.So it doesn't help the GDP, and even hurts the GDP. So if you still aren't convinced, examine the effect of top tax cuts and income. (1) "Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)!"(1)Reaganomics does not help boost our income or our GDP, and therefore is a harmful economic policy.(C) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.The same story is told for wage growth, when one observes historical evidence.(1) "Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase." (1)Tax cuts just don't help! It can be shown with evidence through our economy. We've had this system for 40 years, and now our economy has been recessed very powerfully. The recession started before Obama was in office, so you can't just shift the blame to him. Our economy failed under Reaganomics. How can you say that it isn't the cause of modern economic strife?(D) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.Another point that many Reagan fans love to harp on: Jobs. Let's see how Reaganomics affects jobs. "Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship." (1)SummaryReaganomics does not help the economy. Evidence shows that it only hurts. II. Reaganomics is economically immoral."The hard truth for the Republicans and the Right to swallow is that a three-decade experiment with historically low tax rates on the rich has done little more than concentrate America’s wealth at the very top and leave everyone else either stagnating or falling backwards." (2) (A) It is easily exploitedThe most major flaw in Reaganomics is the riches ability to exploit it. The idea is that, once the cup is full, it will spill over. But unlike cups, wealth does not have a physical limit. To fit the metaphor, all the rich have to do is get a bigger cup. And why wouldn't they? What incentive to they have to give to the poor? None! Very few of the rich donate a significant portion of their wealth to the poor and those who do typically also give to the democratic party (the party fighting Reaganomics). Pope Francis writes "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”The rich are greedy, and with the wealth concentrated in their pockets, they now have the power to control government via lobbying.(B) It is the major cause of the modern income gapWith taxes low for the rich, the money stagnates at the top. Jobs aren't growing, GDP is growing, Wages aren't growing, income isn't growing, and the working class suffers. Now, 90% of Americas wealth is held by the top 1% of Americans. CEO wages have grown "Since 1978, CEO pay at American firms has risen 725 percent, more than 127 times faster than worker pay over the same time period, according to new data from the Economic Policy Institute"(3)SUMMARYReaganomics A) does not help the economy, and B) suppresses the majority of Americans. Therefore, it is a significant cause of modern economic strife.VOTE PRO!Sources1. http://www.faireconomy.org...2. http://consortiumnews.com... 3. http://thinkprogress.org...

4f2f9db1-2019-04-18T16:08:59Z-00002-000

The reasons why we shouldn't have school uniforms are the cost doesn't meet the wadges of families trying to make ends meet.Secondly it doesn't diminish bulling.How is this possible let me explain say I have a blue tie and then I give my opponent the same tie sure the ties are the same but we both look different in the same looking ties.Basically my point is everyone can wear the same clothing but how the look in that clothing is an entirely different story.Also con stated on google there are 1 million people don't care about creativity or art that is not alot there are seven billion people world wide and when viewed from that scale that small compared to seven billion. REBUTTAL#1 CONTENTION 1: BULLYING PREVENTION is illogical because I could had out a billion people the same suit and i promise you all of them will look different sure IT IS THE SAME UNIFORM but the people wearing them will look different. REBUTTAL#2 Contention 3: Restricts inapropriate clothing this one is also illogical sure uniforms restrict bad or improper clothing but the one thing is that WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND COMES TO SCHOOL WITH A BIKINI!!!!!We are humans no nianderthals we know right and wrong.We have proper sense.Cons statement is possibly a derogatory slur calling our species inferior and dumb.And if that's not what it meant then what dos it mean we have common sense to dress correct.We have parents that tell us not to wear a bikini to school or wait they don't tell us that why because we have enough sense to correctley dress.

4f2f9db1-2019-04-18T16:08:59Z-00008-000

Welcome temmo I heavily apologize im a newcomer I dont really know much but I love law and poltics.And I really truly am sorry for the inconvinice with baus. Moving on my first point 1st.School uniforms should be banned because children and teens would like creativity in there lives that includes when they dress for school 2nd.Is it illegal for a student to dress freely.I know all about uniforms and yes it preven6ts alot of mishaps but i t restrains individuality. 3rd.Do you want to wear the same thing everyday? 4th.Bullies will still call you names regardless of the shirt or pants and the #1 rule is dont care about what they say (Note for my opponet I am extremly sorry for what happened)

286e360c-2019-04-18T18:50:27Z-00002-000

I would agree that safety should be the number one priority, if the players did not have a choice in the matter. My argument on the pay of the players is actually a valid argument, because the point I was making through that argument was that the players have to assume the risks of the job in order to perform their job the way they are supposed to. Just like people who work around nuclear reactors assume the health risks involved in the job for the high level of pay they receive, NFL athletes are assuming the risk of playing football the way it is meant to be played, and are being compensated well for it. In response to the long term health effects, the NFL already assumes some of the costs of the players for injuries they receive while playing. I wouldn't be opposed to the NFL putting more plans in place to give ex-NFL players more health care once they have retired from the league, but don't change the game. For instance, the new rule moving the kickoff up 5 yards is basically eliminating the threat of players such as Joshua Cribbs and Devon Hester as extremely dangerous special teams players. Kick returns used to be the most exciting plays during the game, but now teams might as well just start every drive from the 20 yard line because I doubt any coach will kick to the opposing team's kick returners because of the potential for the big play. Another change to the game made by the NFL's new rules is the over protection of the quarterback. The quarterback is arguably the most important position on a football team, and it is obvious that teams without a quarterback, no matter how talented, have trouble playing at a high level without a capable quarterback. I understand trying to protect these players because of their importance to their teams, but the NFL has gone too far. Since Tom Brady's knee injury, the NFL has implemented a number of excessive rules protecting quarterbacks. These rules put the defensive players at a huge disadvantage because they cannot make contact with the quarterback's helmet, or hit them below the knees, or hit them once the ball has been released. This makes their job much harder, and in order to not commit a critical 15 yard personal foul, a defensive player hitting the quarterback has to second guess the hit almost every time. This takes away from the way defensive players play the game.

286e360c-2019-04-18T18:50:27Z-00004-000

The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions. By this, I mean that these new rules protecting the players are beginning to take away from what football inherently is. There are many different aspects that make up football, one of which is its violent nature. If the NFL does not change the direction it is going, then football at the professional level will cease to be the sport that Americans have come to love. Football is a sport that needs hard hits. It is inherent in the actual game of football. Players are protected by helmets engineered to reduce concussions, and a lot of other padding to protect the rest of the body. I understand that concussions are a serious injury, and precautions should be taken to help prevent those injuries, but not at the cost of changing the way the game is played. These rules are mainly being implemented at the professional level, because the NFL athletes are becoming so strong and fast that injury is more likely to occur. In college and high school, this risk is significantly less because the players are not fully developed yet. The NFL players do not deserve the level of protection they are receiving. The average salary for a player in the NFL is about $1.8 million. By signing the contract to play professional football, I believe that the athlete is assuming the risks that come with the job. By implementing a large variety of new rules and fines, the NFL is actually changing the way certain players approach each play. Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison, who has received over $100,000 in fines, has said that he is adjusting his game to abide by the new rules, but openly mocks the NFL and its commissioner Roger Goodell for the stupidity of these unnecessary rules. It is a shame that great players like Harrison should have to change the way they have been taught to play football since they were small children, just to protect athletes making seven figure salaries. I can only imagine what the legends such as Dick Butkus, Lawrence Taylor, or Joe Green would have done if the NFL had forced them to play the game that is being played today.

75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00002-000

Yes because it is just and prevents those rapists and terrible criminals from further harming our society

75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00003-000

should the death penalty be allowed?

884f98e9-2019-04-18T17:22:42Z-00001-000

"If the intention of this debate was to prove that a known cause leads to a known effect, you are simply lacking critical thinking. Critical thinking employs good judgment, context, and competency in making a decision (in this case, whether or not we should have progressive taxation) - especially a decision which huge implications that concerns the economy. Critical thinking takes into account not only efficiency, but equity and morality as well. Is it efficient to kill every murderer that is guilty after being convicted so we dont have to house them in jail? yes. Is it moral? No. Also, it is not up to you to declare who has already won the debate - it is up to the voters." Critical thinking was never supposed to be part of this debate. I am arguing economic growth and government revenue only. Never was equity or morality supposed to be part of this debate at all and that's the bottom line. If I wanted to to debate if raising taxes wasn't moral, I would debate that and NEVER were we debating progressive taxation vs. a flat tax. This is only on taxes and the rich. "Equity: I am talking about income taxes. Who starts a corporation? A person at one point who starts the business. How do they start this business? With an income. The income he uses to start the business is separate from the corporate tax rate. People who are born into rich families inherit a monetary. Also, I see that your shallow reply to my key points show that you don't understand the concept at all." Lets get back to your original argument: "Company "A" is a small business. They make $10,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $9,000. Let's say they reinvest half of the profits (which is what business do) back into their business to expand it. They grow at a rate that $4,500 worth of capital will allow. Now, let's take a look at company "B" a very large business. They make $50,000,000 a month. They are taxed at 10% and are left with $45,000,000 and reinvest half of the profits (just like the small business does) back into their business to expand it......" Your are clearly here talking about corporate taxes, not income taxes. You go on about monopoly, but that's also strictly business and does not focus on the individual, economic growth, or government revenue. This argument fails because this is not what were taking about. "This one is actually quite simple. You could make the moral argument that you believe it is unfair to tax a large corporation more than a small one, but then you have to take into consideration of fairness to the middle-class, not just to the large corporation. If Joe makes $1,000 a month and pays a flat-tax of 10% and he is left with $900, then where is the fairness in taxing the large corporation the same amount, but keeping $45,000,000? A flat-tax harms the middle to poor class more than anyone, because they still need to buy groceries, food, gas, and other essentials but proportionally, have significantly less income to do it and less taxation means that those in poverty have less tax-funded assistance to help them pay for those essentials." That's your moral argument. Now: "Moral reason: there is a moral implication involved in tax rates. Let me set an extreme example for you: Everyone gets taxed at 99% of their income. Would this be moral? No. Who would be able to survive? The richest 1% would still be able to buy basic necessities but neither the middle or lower class would. This is the same fundamental concept of morality in the income tax rate: Those who earn millions, should pay more in taxes than someone that lives in poverty. To say morality doesn't apply to the income tax rate is simply wrong." Morality was never part of this debate. We're arguing economic growth and government revenue. Obviously with a 99% income tax there would be little economic growth. However, lower taxes does create income mobility and economic growth, I have proven that. Finally, on China and environmental issues these still do little with overall taxes in the United States. I said lowering taxes would be a good idea, but I never said where the tax revenue had to go. Conclusion The voters know what we were exactly supposed to debate and my opponent did not refute my arguments. He also focused in two issues not involved with economic growth and revenue. That's one point against conduct. The other point against conduct falls n the fact that he was not supposed to give opening arguments in the first round. Arguments and conduct to me.

70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00003-000

I agree with the alternate definition he provided. Looking back to the definition I cited in round 1, I defined global warming as ". .. the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. " This means that any arguments regarding natural factors' effects on the climate before the late 19th century and long term climate projection of there being another ice age are irrelevant. I'm not contending that natural factors have no effect on the climate, or even that they are not usually the only cause of climate change. All I'm arguing is that the global warming since the late 19th century has been driven mostly by anthropogenic forcings. [1]Since my opponent provided no other arguments, all I will do in this round is show how comparing natural factors and anthropogenic factors shows that humans are the main cause of global warming. The most important of the natural climate forcings is the sun. It is the source of the Earth's energy. This energy comes from the radiation emitted as a result of fusion reactions at the core of the sun. This radiation is known as the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Any change in the TSI causes energy imbalances on the Earth. This energy imbalance can be calculated using the formula below: Delta means change, so Delta(F) means the change in energy (i. e. energy imbalance) and Delta(TSI) means the change in solar irradiance. The 0.7 factor comes from the fact that the Earth reflects about 30% of the solar radiation it receives, and the 1/4 factor comes from spherical geometry. Changes in temperature are proportional to the energy imbalance. This can be expressed in the formula below: Lambda is the constant of proportionality, representing the climate sensitivity (discussed in my first argument) in this case. The only thing that's left is to actually determine the values. First, the change in TSI (in this case, between 1900 and 1950). "Although Wang, Lean, and Sheeley's reconstructionputs the change in TSIsince 1900 at about 0.5 W-m-2, previous studies have shown a larger change, so we'll estimate the change in TSI at 0.5 to 2 W-m-2. " This corresponds to an energy imbalance of around 0.1-0.35 W-m-2. Next, the lambda factor. I explained in the last article that the statistically most probable value for the climate sensitivity was around 3 degrees C. But, there was a lot of variation. "Studies have given a possible range of values of 2 to 4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2, which corresponds to a range of 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W-m-2) for λ. " This gives range of values from 0.05 to 0.4 degrees C, with a most probable value of 0.15 degrees C (corresponding to the statistically most likely climate sensitivity). In other words, solar activity from 1900 to 1950 raised the temperature of the Earth 0.15 degrees C. [2]Looking at the effect of CO2 emissions over that same period, humans increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 20 parts per million, giving a range of values of 0.14-0.32 degrees C for the effect of that emission on the climate, with the most probable being 0.22 degrees C. [2]This corresponds to CO2 amounting for 60% of the warming from 1900-1950. After that, it gets higher. CO2 emissions rise exponentally, and changes in the TSI start getting less positive, and eventually become negative after 1975. "Therefore, the solar forcing combined with theanthropogenicCO2forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase inTSIis responsible for about 15-20% of global warming. But sinceTSIhasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based onreconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period. " Solar activity cannot account for the warming after 1975, and even before that was a smaller factor than CO2. [2]This can be shown in the image below: [3]CO2 correlates with CO2 more than solar activity, especially after 1975. There are other natural forcings, ozone concentrations and volcanic activity being the other major ones. The ozone layer of the atmosphere blocks the sun's UV radiation from reaching the Earth. Lowering levels of ozone may cause warming then by allowing more solar radiation to reach the Earth. However, while ozone levels were decreasing before 1995, they are now increasing (regardless, the declining ozone levels were also caused by humans). And the volcanic activity forcing has actually had a cooling effect on the climate. "Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used a multiple linear regression approach to filter out the effects of volcanic andsolar activity, and the El NiñoSouthern Oscillation(ENSO). They found that volcanic activity, as measured by aerosol optical thickness data (AOD) has only caused between 0.02 and 0.04°C per decade warming from 1979 through 2010 (Table 1, Figure 2), or about 0.06 to 0.12°C warming of the surface and lowertroposphere, repsectively, since 1979 (out of approximately 0.5°C observed surface warming). "[4]In total, all the forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, can be shown below: [3]Greenhouse gases are far more important than solar activity (note that sulfate levels mostly correlate with volcanic activity). ConclusionI don't have anything more to say, since this is all my opponent talks about. Anthropogenic forcings were more important for global warming than natural forcings. Sources[1]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: . https://www.skepticalscience.com...[3]: . http://solar-center.stanford.edu...[4]: . https://www.skepticalscience.com...

ab1d4f0e-2019-04-18T13:52:52Z-00000-000

Why is it their duty to decide who runs the country? If they have no desire to choose their country's leaders, then they should not be forced to make that decision. Do you like being told you have to do something you don't want to? This law would just charge residents unnecessary amount of money or do some community service if they don't conform to vote for the leader of their country. Voting by mail is an option, but is flawed as votes could be lost in the mail.

dca59d39-2019-04-18T20:00:26Z-00001-000

look at minimum wage. it exists now. the stock market is not crumbles. inflation has not gone through the roof or caused bad problems. i thought that stock market statement wasn't worth dignifying with a response. i'm not even arguing everyone gets the same wages so why did you make that statement? also, as i said, we're not giving them an excessive minimum or the same as everyone else, but just an amount a single person could live off at the minimum without living on the streets, as i said. but, i suppose if i look beyond your words I might be able to salvage some reasoning, even though you did not state the reasoning. the argument of inflation. i'll simply refer you to my already stated argument on that matter. "also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living or run amok prices for everyone else. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum." to explain more, mcdonald's for example would charge more, and their suppliers would charge more and everyone else would too. yes inflation would increase. but, this would not be true inflation where everyone's wages is increased, so the increase in the minimum would be more proporitonally to hte increase in inflation.

903c4b94-2019-04-18T13:25:21Z-00004-000

When you say "Should children ages 6-18 have rights", what children? This country(U.S.A) or the entire world.

c8c928fc-2019-04-18T13:22:34Z-00005-000

1. IntroductionIn today’s world, medicines have literally become part of our daily lives. Due to the push of supply and the pull of demand, researchers and public health organisation alike classify more and more common conditions as “diseases”, as the population is ready to take any type of medicines for their cure from these conditions. Improvements in the field of medicine are taking place and extensive research being conducted. The topic of the debate is “Medicines Should Be Made Free”, therefore, the burden of Pro is to show that medicines should be made free at any cost, as “should” is a synonym for ‘duty’ or ’ absolute necessity’, whereas, the burden of Con is to show that it is not "absolute necessity” and to highlight the appalling consequences if such actions were to take place. The whole argument is about whether or not customers like you and me should pay for the medicines we get. The argument that "medicines should be given free" is unsustainable and are utopian dreams of a pied piper.2. ResearchThe Pharmaceutical industry is constantly in the search for new and better therapies, and have developed various molecules that has revolutionised modern medicine. The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most innovative industries in the world today. Pharmaceutical organisations play a pivotal role in promoting the field of research, especially during the outbreaks of deadly epidemics like Ebola, H1N1 etc. One of the major factors that plays an important role in promoting research is money. Money is crucial in this field, as it is in almost any conceivable venture. It is pertinent to note the words of Chancellor of USFC, that the cost of developing new drugs is simply “crazy”; because if a country needs to sell at least one drug in the market, the funds required are upwards of 350-400 million dollars. She says that the “Pharmaceutical industry is not one where anybody can make profits”. It requires major funding, patience and loads of luck to hit upon an efficacious drug.Then where does one expect to fund the pharmaceutical industry? Two common sources are the donors (NGOs) and the customers (pull of demand by the end users). If the pull of demand is cut off by the seemingly ideal plan of doling out medicines free, the research efforts of Pharmaceutical companies is sure to falter. We can’t expect donors to keep paying tons of cash for the Pharmaceutical industry. There is a limit for anything that comes free. Or have'nt we heard the saying "There is nothing called free lunch!!"Therefore, without adequate compensation by the end users, it neither probable for good vaccinations, drugs and other medicines to be created nor improvisations possible. So, making medicines free is suicidal to both the population and the pharmaceutical industry. Sources:http://www.forbes.com...http://phprimer.afmc.ca...

1039ff27-2019-04-18T17:23:50Z-00005-000

I think cigarettes should be illegal in the U.K everywhere, not just in public places. If people are caught with cigarettes, i'm not going to suggest a punishment, but it will be against the law to smoke them-like any other illegal drugs eg: cannabis. So, i am looking for someone who thinks that cigarettes should still be legal in the U.K.

7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00000-000

To conclude my argument for the debate, we have two arguments being presented. The first by my opponent, who claims there are other things than video games causing violence; and myself that state that video games do technically cause violence. My opponent did not define the topic of the word "violence", making it not mean only one thing but multiple, while I used the definition of violence as an emotion. Violence does occur whenever a person plays a video game for about 40 minutes, even though they may just get angry and not do any criminal action. As well as earlier within the debate, my opponent even admitted on most of my points; meaning that he "dropped" the debate. With the given statement, on the fourth round, being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience". So voters, who do you think deserves the win? My opponent, who dropped the debate within the middle, or I, who pushed on and added more arguments. Thank you for this debate my fellow opponent!

7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00006-000

The debate topic is all about why violent games and games in general is not a viable reason to blame acts and thoughts of violence in children and teens. I forgot to mention some rules regarding BoP and statistics. Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a "fact" must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have "logic" back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves. Wikipedia is a viable source as long as the voters look over it and approve of it. They will count off for it if they dont Im guessing. On with the debate! and "Good Luck". I will just state a few points ahead of time to reinforce future arguments. There was violence before games and the xbox. I become a sarcastic person in the next few lines just a reason why i have so much attitude. Ever read a book? I have many times. And several of them have some of the most disgusting displays of violence in them that you can imagine. TV is a great way to teach grueling, cussing, alcoholic or generally bad lifestyles to children and teens. History class puts a lot of images into the minds of children. Lets read about the gassing of the 6 million Jews children! How fun! Or how in every trench hole you get up to send a letter to the general across the field and boom there goes your precious head off into the dirt and bloody mess that was WW1-2. Mayan and aztecs seem like nice things to study! Lets read about the sacrificing of willing people so they can be with a god that probably doesn't care about them cause he does not exist. Where do good kids learn some of the worst things from? Other kids who think whatever they are doing at the moment is so great. "Look at me I am a waste of good parenting because I think its cool to do stupid things all day long." thats where. Send your children to public school and leave them with kids who have decided to act like idiots all day and pretend to be druggies. I'm sorry why should i be living in an R rated movie? I shouldn't because there is no reason why these kids act the way they do they just do it because to them its a life style, to mama and dada its a "phase". I think I have established the many many many other things that cause violence and stupid acts in kids. I am excited to see CON bring something spicy to the table.

48d1e765-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00001-000

I believe that gay marriage should not be legal. It is against many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which are some of the largest religions. Also, if you are thinking in the long term, the population will decrease because less people are actually marrying. Their only choice will be to adopt a baby, as they obviously cannot make one on their own. Also, with our children being brought up thinking that this is okay, we are corrupting what god and the founding fathers of our country believed.

798680b6-2019-04-18T19:35:41Z-00002-000

I hope we will be able to have a very entertaining three round debate. First off, my opponent has given neither no definitions nor contentions. This makes this first round a bit difficult as my opponent failed to define Specialized Government Test. Now my opponent wants the US/State Gov't to create a specialized test that voters must pass every election cycle I assume in order to be able to vote. Now this test will essentially "test your political knowledge" according to my opponent. But I must first ask what is political knowledge in this case? To simply say political knowledge is the wide spectrum that is politics is a huge mistake. Is my opponent talking current events, 1700-1900's, Magna Carta days? My opponent also failed to state what kind of questions will be put on such a test. My opponent also fails to see the logic that they are intelligent racists out there who can pass such tests and still vote for McCain because Obama is half black. This solves nothing except making very busy and poor people unable to vote. My opponent also wants fifteen year olds have the right to vote, which is essentially another debate in itself. Now I will begin to point out the many flaws in my opponent proposal: 1. ) Everyone 18 or above should have the right to vote in this country. Just because Person A may be more intelligent then Person B does not mean that Person B should not be able to vote. Millions of women and minorities fought for years to get the 15th and 19th amendment. The 15th amendment: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The 19th amendment: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. ) Someone who is fifteen does not usually have the correct experience in order to vote. What my opponent is proposing here is highly flawed. Fifteen year olds should have the right to vote? When I was 15, I thought I was knowledgeable in politics but things have changed greatly from the age of fifteen to my current age of seventeen/almost eighteen. Not only that, but voting is a sign of being an adult in society and a sign that you have the right as a citizen to decide who in your opinion should run the country. Many if not most fifteen year olds also would just vote along with their parents. 3. ) My opponent does not obviously know the government. After watching the government screw up highly important thing after thing for years, my opponent now wants to put my right to vote in the government hands? I think the government response to Hurricane Katrina alone should put the scare of keeping your right to vote out of the government hands. 4. ) This leads me to my next point, abuse and corruption. Corruption and Abuse especially in election season is highly known through things like voter fraud. Making such tests would open the door for a political party or certain people abuse the system in order to disenfranchise millions of voters. For example, you took the test but the government never received it or it was incorrectly graded. Then what? Then you can't vote because of the government. 5. ) This leads me to my next point, human error. Who will correct such tests? This goes along with abuse and corruption. Not only that but if someone marks your paper wrong incorrectly and you can't vote because of them? There are no such machines to do such a thing my opponent is proposing. Human error is a reality, and will occur if such a plan is implemented. 6. ) Once again, my opponent did not even define "political knowledge. " What does a President Do? What does a Vice President Do? Who is the current President? If you make test questions like that, why bother making tests in the first place? People who watch the news or pick up a newspaper know such things. Now what if my opponent makes the questions even tougher. Say your put into a room when you take your SATs and your asked who was the 25th president and what was his middle name? Things like that? My opponent has failed to see the many flaws in his plans. 7. ) One other thing that bothered me with my opponent case. This line right here: "For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge. )" The Presidential debates? You learn NOTHING new from the debates as they are basically a forum where the candidates can put their stump speeches into condensed forms. The debates also happen much later into the election cycle. By then, as long as you watch the TV (as the election coverage is 24/7 now) or pick up a newspaper then you know who is for what. I wouldn't want someone to vote for race as much as anyone but as a American that person has the right to make his vote against Obama because he is half black. Final Points: My opponent made no definitions or contentions. My opponent failed to define what such a test would include questions wise along with the definition of "political knowledge. " I have refuted all of my opponent points and pointed out the many flaws in his plan. . http://www.youtube.com... Watch the first video; the man speaking is John Lewis of Georgia who was a leader during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. John is speaking about the right to vote. This is more in depth information on the first video. . http://johnlewis.house.gov... The second video is Rep Rahm Emanuel of Chicago Illinois talking about the same thing. . http://www.youtube.com... What my opponent proposes is also a modern day literary test but in voter political knowledge that will disenfranchise many non-whites and the poor as I stated above. In closing, I just want to make it clear I am not trying to deflect from the objective of this debate by posting these videos or calling my opponent racist. I am not, I am just pointing out how the right to vote is one of the most precious things of all. Let us keep it that way and let us not pass this flawed plan. I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to read my argument and hope you enjoyed reading it. Along with that, I strongly urge you to vote CON. Thank You

d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00001-000

In my final argument I would like to reflect to the reader's that all sport's involve some aspect of hockey in their difficulty and gameplay, but hockey is the one sport where it all comes to together and is tested at a higher level than sports that have similar qualities. Skill 1: Swimming versus Ice Skating Con indeed I made an assumption that there are more swimmer versus ice skater because of conditions around the world, but let's look at which is harder since you seem to have latched onto swimming as your main sport. Swimming is a non weight bearing activity in a medium that supports the body. Ice skating is certainly not this. In swimming you pulled down less by gravity therefore there is less strain on the body than there is in ice skating. Also the water supports the body via buoyant force where as the open air of the real world does not support hockey players. Ice skating is a mutli direction, mutli skilled, serial skilled sport. This requires many changes in body position, direction, stance, coordination, balance, explosive potential. Swimming is a continous skill, which requires speed in a single direction. Therefore you need a lot less athletic ability to be able to professionally swim. Also your max heart rate will be lower in the pool compared to that ice skating(due to the non weight bearing activity). Therefore swimming is great for injured pro athletes to their little water aerobics in but as far as athletic ability goes ice hockey players are far more superior to swimmers, hands down. Skill 2: Hand-Eye Coordination Hand-Eye coordination is involved in all sports to some extent, but ice hockey takes it to the extreme. In Soccer you need hand-eye coordination to kick the ball, in basketball you need hand-eye to catch the ball and shoot, in football you need hand-eye to catch and throw, and in baseball you need it to hit. Now let's look at these examples. Which one sticks out? Baseball! The only other sport in this list that is similar to ice hockey in anyway is baseball. How so? Because the bat acts an extension of the body, in all other sports the athletes have the luxury of actually using their body. So throw the other sports out. Now baseball you only need hand-eye coordination to hit, throw, and catch. In hockey you need much more hand-eye coordination to perform a more wide range of abilities like: blocking shots, passing(w/stick), shooting(w/stick), one-timers(look it up), receiving the pass(w/stick), catching the puck(when necessary)and especially goaltending. I can not stress how much more you use hand-eye in this one particular sport than you do in any other sport, which makes ice hockey harder than them all. -So what? One skill that you need more than any other sport, that doesn't make it most difficult. Skill 3: Balance Football, baseball, soccer, and ice hockey are the main sports that I can think of off that top of my head that involve using intense balance. But soccer and baseball involve far less contact than football and ice hockey, so we'll focus on these two. Football is a fast-paced sport that involves brute contact and is probably one of the more dangerous sports in the world, you definitely need balance in football in order to break tackles, tackle, and stay on your feet. Wait, did you say feet? Oh, yes I forgot you have the luxury of using your feet on solid ground. You see folks, in hockey, players do not have this luxury as they are practically balancing themselves on two swords while other 200-pound men are coming at them try to murder them on ICE. Football players do not need nearly as much balance as hockey players do because they are on their feet, which are considerably wider than a skate blade therefore they have more surface area to balance on the ground which has more friction than ice does. Meanwhile hockey players are doing virtually the same thing only they are on thin blades of steal, on a almost friction-less surface. In addition players need great balance to simple things like shoot and pass whereas balance is not nearly as crucial in the acts of catching and throwing in football. Therefore we can conclude hockey players need more balance than football players. Skill 4: It's A Team Game I will concede defeat here con this where difficulty can be the same. But let me quickly rattle of some sports than are not a team game. Tennis(singles), Extreme Sports of any kind, NASCAR, SWIMMING! , gymnastics, boxing, UFC Wrestling, Martial Arts, Rodeo, Running, Cycling, and Golf. So we can throw all these sports out of contention because they have the luxury of only relying on their own talents, and not the talents and abilities of others as well as their own. Skill 5: Durability Soccer, Basketball, and Hockey are the only sports in the same hemisphere when it comes to durability, because they are the only sports that are constantly moving while the game clock is counting down. It is said that by the end of a soccer game, a soccer player has run 11 miles. I dont have a stat like that for basketball or hockey but that is pretty damn impressive. This is the part of the argument where I will also concede that these sports are similar in the way that all involve running or skating back and forth, but this is where I will call your attention, people of debate. org to our list. All these skills are in hockey, but some of these skills barely apply to all sports, and if they do not to the extent that they do in hockey. Hockey is the most intense sport out there and it involves are far more great range of athletic ability than any other sport. According to ESPN, this is the list of most difficult sports. . http://sports.espn.go.com... According to this article by ESPN, THE WORLD WIDE FREAKING LEADER IN SPORTS, boxing is harder by 1 point while hockey is in second and harder than football by a full 3. Now last I will destroy boxing to make sure you all know hockey is better than them all. First boxing has and is known to have fixed matches. So that hurts boxings credibility as the hardest sport right off the bat. . http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... In addition boxing gains most of its points in the article in strength and power which I would assume boxing would have being a sport based on strength. Also boxing accumulates eight points in the nerve category which requires no athletic ability what so ever. Meanwhile hockey scores no lower than a 6 in any category except flexibility which I highly disagree with considering NHL netminders are some of the most flexible men on the planet. Conclusion: I have provided an article that shows hockey is the second hardest sport according to ESPN. I then took the number one ranked sport boxing and showed you that it is in indeed inferior to hockey and ESPN made a mistake in their order of one and two. In addition hockey is a team sport where boxing is not, making accomplishments in hockey far more challenging. I have also shown the readers that swimming is far easier than ice skating, making ice hockey a harder sport than swimming, which is con's prime sport. I also took several skills and broke them down to show that ice hockey utilizes those skills to a far great extent than any other sport and that ice hockey uses more of these athletic skills than other sports that only use one or two of the main skills.

d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00004-000

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Okay, it is my belief that all sports are equally difficult to play at a professional level, and that's what I will be proving to you. I know that Pro asked me to choose a sport, but as all sports are equally difficult, there is really no point in choosing any single sport. First, let's take a look at the definition of hardest, or difficult. According to Merriam Webster, difficult is defined as: hard to do, make, or carry out. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;The main point of all of Pro's arguments is that Hockey is a very dangerous sport. The more dangerous a sport is, does not mean that the sport is much more difficult to play. I agree that some sports are much more dangerous than others, but I disagree with Pro when he uses danger as a basis of how difficult a sport is. Okay, I will get into a rebuttal of Pro's arguments. Refutation 1:Pro states that "Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand". First, I would assume that if you do not know how to skate, you would not be a professional hockey player. I must remind everyone that the topic that we are debating today is the Ice Hockey is the Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. This means that all players will already know how to skate. And what about water sports like swimming, or water polo? These sports you need to know how to swim in order to play. I would say that swimming is much harder to learn than skating, as skating is pretty much just running on ice. Hockey could potentially be the hardest sport to learn but not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. Refutation 2:This is an argument about the danger of Hockey. But if a sport is much more dangerous, does it mean that it is much more difficult to play? Let's take a look at some other dangerous sports. Skydiving. Skydiving is an extremely dangerous sport. By Pro's logic, this means that this sport is also very difficult to play. However, it is not. All you have to do is to pull your ripcord while you're in the air to deploy your parachute. It is very easy to do. UFC Fighting. Also an extremely dangerous sport. But all you do is punch the other person and avoid getting punched. Also not a very difficult sport to play. Okay I have shown you 2 other dangerous sports. What you're essentially saying in this argument is that Hockey is a difficult sport to play, simply because it is dangerous. No. Just because a sport is dangerous, it doesn't mean that that sport is difficult to play. Refutation 3: Pro says that "Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating. "Once again, these are pro players, so they already know how to do these skills. However, other sports require focus and hand-eye coordination as well. Hockey is not the only sport that requires this focus. In basketball, for example, you need good hand-eye coordination to score 3-pointers, to pass to your teammates. You need focus in order to score that layup, or that free throw. In football, you need good hand-eye coordination to throw those long passes, to score that field goal. You need focus in order to run as far as you can to get a touchdown. In badminton or tennis, you need good hand-eye coordination in order to even hit the birdie or ball. You need focus in order to predict where your opponent will hit the ball to. As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. Arguments:Okay, let's get into some arguments.1. SkillsAll sports require some skill in order to play them at the professional level. Hockey is not the only sport. It really differs from person to person. Some people may find skating easy to pick up, while others may find swimming much easier to learn. You cannot generalize all people under one category and just say that hockey is the most difficult sport to play. All sports have their advantages and disadvantages and the difficulty of each sport will vary from person to person. For example, let's use math. Okay, so I'm asian, and you're probably european, I would assume. I find math easy to learn and do. You would probably find math difficult, and you can't understand certain concepts. However, when we learn about european history, it would be much easier for you, than for me. What I'm saying here is that some people find certain things easier than other people. I can't just say that math is the easiet subject, because what about you then? Since you find math difficult, my statement would then be false. It is the same with this resolution. You're categorizing all professional players and saying that hockey is the hardest sport to play. What if someone finds hockey easy? Like Wayne Gretzky for example. Then you're statement would be false. Conclusion:The only way you're statement can be true is if you can prove that all professional hockey players find hockey the most difficult sport to play at a professional level. Then, you would also have to make sure that these pro hockey players also have to play other sports at a professional level, otherwise their opinion would be biased. There is no possible way you can do that. Therefore you have lost this debate.

d942939-2019-04-18T19:54:52Z-00002-000

The SATs and ACTs are important because the success for students on these tests has a direct correlation to better success in college and earning better careers. I strongly disagree with your point advocating the negation with the "computerized and stuff" America. Regardless of how "computerized" America is, mathematics and language will always exist. When using technology, one must have a strong grasp of verbal communication and mathematics.

3774807f-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00002-000

Premise I: Burden of Prove.Pro specifically said I had mentioned the Resolution being "Question A." Now he claims he was saying something different. Either-way, Pro is wrong. The Resolution is about whether Minimum Wage decreases USFG spending... Since Pro's case is that it does so by decreasing welfare on the grounds of it lowering poverty, he must answer how it effects those in poverty... This is because if he fails to prove it lowers poverty, the case he set up fails to stand.I should note that BOP is on Pro. He must provide offensive proof (as opposed to just defensive prove.)Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage.Pro says 35 million workers are earning less than $10.10 a year. This isn't true... The most reasonable estimate is CNN's 15 million... (1) Far less than half of Pro's claim. And since I've proven that someone working $7.65 an hour is still above poverty, Pro's case means little.Pro has done nothing to prove these people are poor, while I have given irrefutable evidence that they are, in fact, not in poverty. Most of my Arguments I case from the beginning was dropped last round... Arguments that make Pro's case here pointless. I will repeat those dropped cases again:- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year. - 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor. - 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate.- Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfareSo long as Pro can't prove those 15 million earning $10.10 or less are poor, he loses this debate. To carry on my case, raising the MW to $10.10 would cost upwards of 1,000,000 jobs, according to the CBO... Most of whom weren't poor until after they become jobless (2). This 1,000,000 jobs lost is above the number of impoverished the CBO claims would be helped.Pro continues by misrepresenting my case to the point of lying. He says I claimed the average income of one minimum wage worker is $50,000+ a year (after having dropped the argument). I said the average HOUSEHOLD Income is $50,000, which is true (3). I need not explain why Pro's refutation here isn't compelling... A teenager earning Minimum Wage, with parents earning $20,000 a year each, would live in a house with a Household income of around $50,000. If anything, he proves my point that MW workers are above poverty, as the poverty rate for a worker is $11,770. If two parents worked at Pro's claimed income, they would be nearly $20,000 above their poverty rate, capable of raising 4 children with plenty of money left... Pro's own math is self-refuting if accepted as true.Pro's whole case seems to assume all MW workers are living alone... They are teenagers living with parents. That is how so many people can live on MW, with household incomes so high. Unless Pro wants to quantify what it takes to be poor, he has no case. My source for the rate of people effected by hikes being poor uses the poverty rate for determining poorness, as does the USFG when handing out most welfare. If we review the Demographics of Minimum Wage Workers even more, we find that 3/5th of the people Pro talks about are enrolled in shool (4). Only 22% of the people he references are in poverty, and the average worker's Household income is over 150% the poverty threshold for their family. Even among the group of MW workers out of High School, the average household income is STILL above $42,000 a year.Pro's case for the MW worker being poor, and in need of welfare, simply isn't true.[1] http://money.cnn.com...[2] https://www.cbo.gov...[3]http://www.forbes.com...[4] http://www.heritage.org...Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.Pro's numbers mean nothing. They ignore every law of academia... They don't account for variables and context, or any other force that impacts the stats. If Minimum Wage is increased in 2016, and then a new industry forms, hiring 10 million workers, Pro's method would claim the wage hike caused the employment increase... He MUST account for these variables, as my source did, to make his point adequate. His number don't even account for how many of those jobs where MW jobs...That being said, he claims his numbers show the MW leads to employment increases, with no signs of disemployment. However, only 57% of the hikes saw increases in the job market. This is far from "With no real evidence of minimum wage increases leading to unemployment." 57% of successes doesn't even count as a correlation, better yet causation. Especially since the job market increases just as often every year MW didn't increased. The only truth can be found by clearing out the clutter than corrupts one's numbers.To strengthen both this argument, and Argument I, even CNN reports that a review of studies show no indication that increasing Minimum Wage would decrease Poverty (5). They even claim that most wage gains where seen by higher earning workers, and not those in poverty. Another review of studies find the same results (6). Minimum Wage increases, correlating well with each argument I made (especially in Argument I) do not reduce poverty.Following a time-tested method of research, Holtz-Eakin find that a hike to $15 an hour would cost 6,600,000 jobs, or 3,800,000 million jobs at $12. FAR over the CBO's estimates (7).[5] http://www.cnn.com...[6] http://econlog.econlib.org...[7] http://americanactionforum.org...Argument III: Less USFG Income = More DebtRaising the Minimum Wage would cost nearly a million jobs, billions of dollars in hours, and billions in lost corporate income as less people can afford the higher prices. Pro can not throw out one benefit without weighing it against the harms.If Person A sees their income increase 20%, their productivity increase 15%, and prices increase 10%, but he loses 30% of his hours, he will see the following:Productivity decrease 19.5%.Income decrease 16%.Ability to buy things decrease 37%.The negative impacts of Minimum Wage would quickly negate Pro's benefits. Even the CBO claims that very little of the new revenue would be acquired by people who are legally impoverished. Based on the CBO's 1 million jobs lost, and Pro's MW income listed in Argument 1, over $17.7 billion would be lost a year. Despite how the CBO says impoverished families will earn $5 billion more before losses are included. This is a net loss of $12.7 billion.Using the numbers from Holtz-Eakin's study, over $115 billion would be lost in wages at $15 an hour.Pro says US businesses can keep their employees... This is completely wrong. Most MW establishments are licensed. Based on income v profits, the KFC I work for brings in at least $50,000 a year in profit, and we have 25 employees. An increase to the fabled $15 an hour would cost us nearly $280,000 a year, twice our profit rate. Franchisers can't afford to spend that kind of money each year. My sources have long since already shown that Pro's claim here is wrong.Seattle is seeing restaurants close at a high rate now, and many resturants are having to close at earlier hours, and reduce labour (8). This (primarily the closing early and reucing labour part) is exactly what I claimed... Reducing worker's hours to make up for costs, which decreases paychecks and productivity.[8] http://www.forbes.com...Conclusion:Increasing the Minimum Wage would cost far too many jobs, plummeting otherwise healthy Americans into unemployment and poverty. I have already shown that increasing the MW would not help the poor, and that, if anything, it would increase dependency on Welfare for millions as hours, and jobs, are cut.

3774807f-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00007-000

Here is a graph of the United States Federal Government's total spending for the year 2015 (1). s://media. nationalpriorities. org. .. ; alt="" width="798" height="728" />A. The People"Social security, unemployment and labor" include food stamps and welfare. About 35.4% of all Americans are on welfare. The population of the United States is 318.9 million (3), making the amount of people on welfare, in the United States, 112.89 million people. Furthermore, there are 47 million Americans on food stamps (4). So, there are about 112.89 million people on welfare, and 47 million on food stamps. B. The CostsThe United States spends about $131.9 billion on welfare (not including food stamps) (5). They also spend about $76.6 billion on food stamps (6). 47.8% of all food stamp recipients are working (7), and 56% of welfare recipients are working (8). That is $36,614,800,000 of US government money going to WORKING people who receive food stamps, and $73,864,000,000 of USFG money goes to WORKING welfare recipients. C. Minimum WageRaising minimum wage would decrease the amount of working recipients of welfare and food stamps. This would greatly decrease the amount of money spent in the USFG. Thank you for reading. Sources(1) . https://www.nationalpriorities.org... (2) . http://economyincrisis.org... (3) . http://www.census.gov... (4) . https://www.washingtonpost.com... (5) . http://www.statisticbrain.com... (6) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (7) . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (8) . http://blogs.wsj.com... (9)

3774807f-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00009-000

Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions:Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement.

59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00002-000

The government is not "shoving down its morality in law". The government is trying to protect its citizens from stupid people who will do stupid stuff on drugs, and who will do stupid stuff to get those drugs. If the "distribution of weed and how it is dangerously used" is none of the Government's business, then what is? People complain about how crappy the Government is because it is over protective. And in the parts it is not protective, people complain that it needs to be more so. If marijuana was made legal, the Government would immediately get complaints from people against it, saying that they are not being protected from a drug that can do harm to the body, and harm to victims of people addicted to a drug. Prohibition will never completely stop drug abuse, but that does not mean that prohibition should be stopped. Nothing is ever fool proof. According to [1], prohibition has decreased the use of marijuana, even though it has not stopped it. As I mentioned in round two, marijuana is indeed proven to be less of a risk than cigarettes and alcohol, but that does not mean that marijuana should be legalized. That is just a poor decision to not ban cigarettes and drinking too much alcohol. Legalizing marijuana would not change "absolutely nothing". It would make the situation worse. Teenagers would have next to zero consequences (besides physical) when smoking weed, and more teens would be going to school high, not giving a care about school work and getting good grades. School grade point averages across the country would plummet. Also, teachers could smoke marijuana without getting fired. Weed should not be treated differently from cigarettes and alcohol. However, cigarettes and alcohol should be treated more seriously. People are not responsible enough to take their body's health seriously. Having a restraint on these poisons will at least decrease the amount of injuries and deaths because of the abuse of these drugs. "Con is acting as if Marijuana is the equivalent of cocaine." Marijuana IS NOT nearly as dangerous as cocaine. People on weed are almost never as dangerous. I did mention in round two that some dealers line their marijuana with other substances (sometimes cocaine, the source cited in that argument), which could cause the user to act in a similar manner as someone on the other drug. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...

59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000

The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...

a5a3948d-2019-04-18T17:31:19Z-00005-000

I am doing a debate on lowering the driving age to 15 instead of 16 this would help us out with our economy too, there would be more cars being bought by younger ages. Because of more cars being bought there would be money being pumped into our economy and with that lowering our taxes a lot. Our biggest problem in this country is money and with m,ore money we open a lot of new doors and opportunities for others. We could open up new jobs for other people, we could lower the food prices in grocery store, the two most important in my opinion is either making homes with the extra funds coming in or feeding the people that have nothing especially if they have children. That is why we should,NO,need to lower the driving age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a5a3948d-2019-04-18T17:31:19Z-00004-000

750 character limit There is no logic behind the claim that lowering the driving age down a year will somehow fix the economy or cause taxes to be lowered at all. In fact lowering the driving age even further would only cause more economic problems since car accidents are the leading cause of teenage deaths and the reason why teenage have such high auto insurance. Lowering the age limit for drivers only puts more bad drivers on the road; which raises insurance costs, the financial burden on parents, and the cost to the economy that car accidents cause would rise even higher. http://money.cnn.com... ^ Current cost of car accidents to the economy = $160 BILLION We should not lower the age limit to drive

4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00003-000

Thank you for posting your next argument. Here is a clip from the New York times news, "About two years ago, a group of federal researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. Now, investigating further, they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease. " You can read the full report here: http://www.nytimes.com... That is one way of looking at it. Another way is this, people who are overweight do suffer from those sicknesses you listed, but even more people die from starvation in other countries. Nowhere in my arguments did I say I was just talking about the USA. In children alone 15 million will die in 2010 of starvation. And those are the reported cases. Most people who live in 3rd world counties are underweight. 30,000 African children under the age of 5 die today, most of these children are underweight. Therefore, people who are overweight do tend to live longer than those aren't. There are many more statistics I could show, but I believe my point has already been made. I thank my opponent and look forward to his next argument. Sources: (1). http://library.thinkquest.org... (2). http://wiki.answers.com... (3). http://www.nytimes.com...

4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00007-000

I say that fat people live longer than skinny people. You may start.

e9b44971-2019-04-18T13:56:01Z-00003-000

This debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like "Hate". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.

8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00003-000

Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.

9bb545f5-2019-04-18T18:06:52Z-00003-000

Clearing Up the ConfusionThere has been a lot of confusion in this debate. I would like to clear things up. First- You are right when you say "You'd assume that he meant further restricted or abolished." That is what I mean and have been trying to clear up. The comment I left was very unclear and I hope you and the audience understand that you're right when you say I think guns should be no further restricted, because current laws are strict enough. I hope that clears up what I stand for on the issue and do apologize for any confusion. I am standing for no further restrictions than what there already are. Thank You.Now, I realize when my opponent states his argument for round one, he was unaware of what I said in the previous section "Clearing Up the Confusion" Also, a ten year old has no constitutional rights, so that comment at the end was completely irrelevent. My opponent stated above unaware of what I stand for, and in the debate my opponent has gotten the idea that I am for no gun restrictions at all, which is not what I stand for, and I apologize if you were confused. The comments I understand may have been misleading. The Debate of No Further RestrictionsMy opponent in taking the "Pro" (For) side of this debate means that he is in favor of more restrictions on our guns. With more restrictions than there already are, that would not allow certain groups to get guns. Now, that is a direct attack on the "Right to Bear Arms," our second amendment. So, let's say in theory that his idea follows through. Technically, as American people we would be losing an amendment, a right as a citizen of the United States. Nobody, has the power to take our rights. Not mine, not my opponent's, and not the audience or judges. And if you are in favor of losing one of you're rights than it is your right to vote for my opponent, but if people like my opponent keep getting their way you will lose that right too, and won't be able to vote for who you want. Which leads me directly in to my next topic.Taking Our RightsIf the people of this country keep getting their way with issues like this, we may lose more rights than just our guns. Here's an example: It starts with taking away assault rifles, then taking away anything that has the ability to shoot automatic, then losing pistols, then no guns. Which means you just lost the "second amendment" And if you lose one amendment why not another? And another? Once they get started and realize how much they can take from you, the government will not stop. So let's stop this now, this is America. ConclusionAdding more restrictions would just take us closer and closer to losing guns in general. Here's a small article I came across on the internet that I thought was very informative, so why not give it a look. I don't agree with every specific detail but I think it gives a lot of good points on why we need to stop adding more restrictions- http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com...Talking to a good friend of mine about gun laws I heard something I will never forget. And I quote him, "Remember, more people have died for you're freedom than they have in mass shootings domestically"And I would love to end on that idea. Think of all the blood, sweat, and tears our soldiers have lost fighting to keep rights like the second amendment. Lets not let their dedication, hard work, and lives go to waste. Stop taking our rights.

9bb545f5-2019-04-18T18:06:52Z-00004-000

Hello, Samyul. Thank you for the debate and I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, however, I strongly disagree with your premise. My opponent's claim.My opponent has stated that he does not believe guns should be restricted. On first glance, you'd naturally assume that he meant further restricted or abolished. But no, as of Thursday, 10/11/12 5:10 am, through his posting in round one and through his remarks in the comment section it is very clear that my opponent is referring to any restriction whatsoever.My opponent's inevitable defense. Being that my opponent resides in Columbus, Ohio, it isn't unreasonable to assume he's referring to the US. My opponent's defense is 2 fold. He must first defend the abolition of basic gun possession laws, and then defend restriction of gun possession in regards to area. As defined by this debate, my opponent has rejected the laws preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns & that gun owners are to be above the age of 18 years old. I ask you, my opponent, my audience, and my judges, is it plausible to allow a 10 year old child to walk to the store (Because we deem him/her unacceptable to drive due to age and maturation) and buy a fully automatic assault rifle? In terms of area, should that same child be allowed to take his newly equipped fully automatic assault rifle to elementary school?Conclusion In conclusion, it is inconceivable to allow a 10 year old child to possess said weapon, and then allow the child to take it to elementary school. Thus, requiring gun restriction laws.

dd44ea25-2019-04-18T15:51:56Z-00001-000

Arguments extended

1c1c7401-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00003-000

i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body. Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.

d52eef7-2019-04-18T11:53:31Z-00003-000

Round 1 will be used for opening statements. Round 2 will be used for refuting and responding to opposing opening statements. Round 3 will be used for final/closing statements. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I hold the position that it is unethical to murder animals unnecessarily when alternatives are easily accessible. [1] It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. This fact proves we do not need the nutrition that comes with animals and their byproducts, therefore we can eat an animal free diet and thrive on it. We do not need to consume animals for health. Slaughtering animals solely because people enjoy the taste of meat is argued by some to be wrong and morally unjustifiable. If we do not need animals for good health, why do we condemn billions of animals to a life of cruelty, suffering, enslavement, torture, murder and mutilation? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

c4e3d825-2019-04-18T13:30:33Z-00001-000

Death sentence should be allowed (in all counties) due to the following factors: A) The Criminal would be sentenced to death/killed. He/She cannot do any more crimes/offenses. B) The number of criminals go down. C)Almost everyone is scared of death which makes less criminals due to their fear of death. D) If he/she is not killed he/she will have around 2% (as of 1999) chance of escaping which will have a chance to do the same crime.

8294b441-2019-04-18T17:22:30Z-00003-000

Video Games DO cause violence. The violent nature of our generations of current games brainwash peoples minds into thinking it's, "Just a game." Or, "It's not bad." Little do they know it makes them into killers.

1e4f8705-2019-04-18T19:28:21Z-00004-000

http://dictionary.reference.com...) Beneficial - conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) ARGUMENT: 1A: Accountability "The NCLB Act will strengthen Title I accountability by requiring States to implement state wide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual state wide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward state wide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards. " (. http://www.ed.gov...) We need accountability in our schools. We can't assume that schools are doing everything they should. We cannot possibly fix the academic problem in the United States if we don't hold schools that don't do well accountable. We need to give funding to schools that do well, so that other schools will try to do better. 1B: Tests can help pinpoint the problem With nothing to measure academic standard with, it is impossible to see what a schools problem may be. With tests in various subjects, it can be easy to see where a school needs to improve. The same applies for regular students. Rather than using just one standard (grades) to measure performance on, with tests you have a more precise and balanced standard to use. 1C: NCLB is effective This source shows that NCLB has raised student standards. (. http://www.ed.gov...) Thank you.

33a444c-2019-04-18T15:58:58Z-00002-000

Let's consider Pro's round two arguments in favor of nuclear energy: Amount The first of these is the amount of fuel available, and how long it could potentially last. The figures quoted here are so rubbery and based on speculation as to be pretty well meaningless. We are told that based on current consumption rates and current known supplies there is around 230 years worth of material remaining. This is fair enough. Then, we are told that using other sources of uranium, and other radioactive elements and isotopes that are not currently in use, and fission technologies that are not yet in production, the figure "could" be raised to thirty thousand years. That's a massive jump, and a lot of "ifs". Finally, Pro makes the claim that "it may be so that, at current energy consumption, we could sustain ourselves for 1 million years on nuclear fission reactions alone." This is a quantum leap from the thirty thousand quoted in the referenced article, and the source is not quoted. Pro, could you please provide the source of this claim? Pro closes his argument by stating "Nuclear energy clearly has much greater reserves than fossil fuels, and energy that is always available, unlike renewables". Unlike the elastic figures and speculation about future technologies used by the nuclear industry to estimate there may be around 30,000 years worth of atomic fuel left, we know for certain that "The sun runs out of hydrogen fuel in its core about five billion years from now"[1]. Furthermore, since winds are caused by heating of the Earth by the sun, we know for certain without any speculation that there is five billion years worth of renewable energy left, regardless of how much is used. Efficiency According to Pro, "Nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient that other forms of energy, as it has a greater capacity factor and lower per unit energy costs than than other forms of energy, both fossil fuels and renewable." This argument is just not true, as typically, figures quoted by nuclear energy producers look only at ongoing production costs, and ignore massive initial setup costs - for example $10 billion to construct a reactor, and clean up costs of up to hundreds of billions of dollars (as discussed in my round two argument) when something goes wrong. "Cheap" atomic energy is based largely on massive subsidies: "Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."[2] Furthermore, private sector investors recognize that nuclear is not an economically viable energy option for the future: "Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants." Only continued massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive."[2] In summary, as Time Magazine eloquently puts it: "private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill."[3] Environment This is where the pro nuclear lobby have to stretch the furthest. According to Pro, "Nuclear energy actually has very little effect on the environment". Perhaps Pro should try convincing the Navajo people, whose lands were used for uranium mining from 1944 til 1986, of that. It is no coincidence that "Risk of lung cancer among male Navajo uranium miners was 28 times higher than in Navajo men who never mined"[4]. In addition, "Rates of birth defects in babies born to Navajo women living in uranium mining areas in New Mexico and Arizona between 1964 and 1981 were 2 to 8 times the national averages, depending on the type of defect."[4] Or perhaps he should try convincing the Scottish farmers of the "minimal" environmental impact of nuclear power generation: "The direct consequences of the accident [Chernobyl] were felt in Scotland until 2010 when the last of the agricultural restrictions put in place following the catastrophe were lifted".[5] But it isn't over yet. Even today, 28 years after Chernobyl, "the country could still face contamination from the world's worst nuclear accident if the 1,600-mile exclusion zone around the now defunct power plant goes up in flames. The forests have been allowed to grow wild and unmanaged since the tragedy almost three decades ago and have continued to absorb contamination still evident in the area. Raising temperatures and lack of rain have now created a serious risk of a massive blaze, which could rage on for several days and have far-reaching consequences. Lack of resources mean spotting and putting out flames before they burn out of control is near impossible although a core group of volunteers is trying to do their best. Scientists in Scotland agree the prospect of redistribution of contaminated particles is "very real""[5]. The radioactive half life of products used in nuclear power generation ranges from tens of years to millions of years. Radioactive products which are left laying on the ground (tailings), or buried under the ground or ocean leave an environmental legacy that could last well beyond the life expectancy of the human race. And now I'd like to consider some additional arguments raised by Pro in round three: Firstly, we have this rather odd statement: "The only real consideration for nuclear waste is the radioactivity and the potential threat to life that it creates. However, the considerations are not important". Hopefully, this represents an unfortunate choice of words, and not really a total disregard of the many tens of thousands who have already died or will die as a result of accidents which have already occurred in the nuclear industry. Concerning storage of nuclear by products, various solutions are being explored globally; but no permanent solutions have been implemented. One pro-nuclear source admits: "Currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently".[6] Regarding transportation of nuclear waste, Pro states that "elaborate packaging" reduces the chance of a catastrophe to almost none. It would be interesting to see the "probabilistic risk analysis" on which these figures were based, but it is not essential, because the argument ignores the most significant factor - the potential for terrorism. As I pointed out in round two, this month has seen the first recorded instance of a deliberate attack on a nuclear reactor. Particularly with the increasing use of drone technology, the potential for an attack on radioactive materials during transport is a very real, and very frightening possibility. And no amount of "elaborate packaging" will be effective against a missile attack. The remaining arguments from Pro in this round seem to be, in the main, denials of plain facts on the dangers of radioactivity from the nuclear industry. For example: - "Miners of radioactive materials are actually much safer than are popularly believed". - "As for genetic mutations, again, while the risk is there, the dangers and probabilities of receiving any adverse effects are small." - "As for nuclear disasters, these are actually very rare" - " " core melting and containment failure " can cause few if any deaths to the public, regardless of the scenario that led to the core melt and containment failure." All of these claims are contradicted by facts that I have raised in round two. Rather than refute them again here, I will refer to them in the last round when I summarise our respective cases. And finally, on the subject of economic viability, Pro cites an article by the Nuclear Energy Institute in saying: " "Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U.S. economy." A big cost equals an even bigger gain". Again, this claim by a major interest group is simply smoke and mirrors. It refers to the yearly "economic output" from a typical nuclear power generator, and claims it to be in the order of $470 million dollars per year. Yet what is not factored into this is the cost to construct the reactor in the first place. Even allowing for only $8 billion dollars which is claimed in the article, this gives an interest bill alone (at a modest 5%) of over $400 million dollars per year, which virtually wipes out all profits made. In comparison to this, renewable energy sources have negligible construction costs and vastly lower operating costs. References: [1] http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu... [2] http://www.motherearthnews.com... [3] http://content.time.com... [4] http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us... [5] http://www.express.co.uk... [6] http://nuclearinfo.net...

33a444c-2019-04-18T15:58:58Z-00005-000

My first argument is going to be rather short, simply making a case for nuclear energy. I will be more in depth when I respond to con's objections and refutations. Amount Nuclear energy represents the longest-lasting, uninterrupted source of power the world has. Fossil fuels are fast running out and renewables need backup generators to run when energy is not being created. "According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered - a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time. " Of current known reserves, that's 230 years. [1] On top of that, other sources of uranium (such as seawater) and more efficiently built power points could dramatically raise that already large number. ". .. fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. " This means that these plants would run out of the current supply of uranium in 30000 years. [1] Even further, uranium is only one potential ore. Take thorium, for example. The Thorium Energy Alliance says, "There is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 10,000 years. " Further, protactinium, radium, polonium, lead, bismuth, and radon could all be used as well. [2][3] What this adds up to is a tremendous supply of energy not just for today, but for the unknown demands of tomorrow. Between the different ores (many have multiple isotopes), it may be so that, at current energy consumption, we could sustain ourselves for 1 million years on nuclear fission reactions alone. Nuclear energy clearly has much greater reserves than fossil fuels, and energy that is always available, unlike renewables. Efficiency Not only is the amount of nuclear energy enormous, the way it is used is more efficient than other forms of energy. For example, take power plant capacity factors. This considers actual energy production as a percentage of potential energy production at full capacity- "Nuclear energy facilities generate electricity 24/7 at an 86 percent capacity factor. This is more efficient than other types of energy - combined-cycle natural gas, with a 56 percent capacity factor; coal-fired at 55 percent; and wind at 31 percent. " In other words, nuclear power plants produce energy more of the time than other forms of energy. [4] Further, let's now consider cost. Nuclear energy, per unit of energy, is the cheapest energy option that the world has. ""Production costs at nuclear energy facilities in 2012 averaged 2.40 cents per kilowatt-hour, cheaper than coal (3.27 cents) and natural gas-fueled plants (3.40 cents). " It also costs much less the renewable energy sources. [4] Here is a picture of the range and median costs of four types of energy: [5] Nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient that other forms of energy, as it has a greater capacity factor and lower per unit energy costs than than other forms of energy, both fossil fuels and renewable. Environment I'm sure my opponent will talk about this, and I'll have much more to say in the appropriate rounds, but I can make a positive argument here. Nuclear energy actually has very little effect on the environment. "Of all energy sources, nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment especially in relation to kilowatts produced because nuclear plants do not emit harmful gases, require a relatively small area, and effectively minimize or negate other impacts. In other words, nuclear energy is the most "ecologically efficient" of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species, and air resources. "[6] Further, the amount of waste that is produced is greatly reduced compared to fossil fuels. "Because uranium contains many thousands of times more energy per unit of weight than fossil fuels, the waste from a nuclear power station is very small in volume and is fully managed and extremely secure at the nuclear sites. " The small amount of waste can be stored safely in secure locations, and without harmful effect, unlike with fossil fuels. [7] Conclusion Overall, when considering the amount of nuclear energy the Earth has (potentially over 1 million years worth at current capacity), the capacity factor it has from producing energy more of the time (unlike often interrupted renewables), the lower cost of nuclear energy per unit of energy, and the lessened strains on the environment, it is clear that nuclear energy is a good choice for society. Sources [1]: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [2]: . http://thoriumenergyalliance.com... [3]: . https://www.niehs.nih.gov... [4]: . http://www.nei.org... [5]: . http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org... [6]: . http://learn.fi.edu... [7]: . http://www.cna.ca...

75f2e891-2019-04-18T19:01:40Z-00005-000

I am arguing that homosexuality is NOT wrong. 1. Not a choice Homosexuality has a significant genetic component: According to Time Magazine, "It's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves. With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line. What's going on? Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings." [1] In addition, according to New Scientists, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [2] In addition, many studies link being gay with pre-natal testosterone exposure (which would be determined genetically, since the fetus's genetics determine which hormones it manufactures). According to the Seattle Times, "In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure. Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. 'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women,' Breedlove said. This can't be a fluke.'" [3] 2. Homosexuality in nature The same Seattle Times article points out that sheep breeders have long known that 8% of rams refuse to mate (because they are gay). A book by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., called Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity outlines all the different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. For example, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are homosexual. [4] The book is the first to document homosexual behavior on such a wide scale because the taboo nature of the subject led many previous biologists/naturalists to exclude observed homosexual behaviors from their published literature. Bahemihl documents 1500 species that display homosexual behavior. [5] If animals, which are not rational beings, engage in homosexual behavior, it must be "natural" and cannot be a "choice." 3. Anomalies Approximately 5 "intersex" children are born in the United States each day. An "intersex" individual has components of both male and female sex genitalia. The doctors will almost always ask the parents to pick a gender and then remove the other gender's sex organs. The child will likely need hormone supplements for the rest of his/her life. This child would be considered "transgendered" since he/she has no natural gender. If this child engages in "heterosexual sex," is that gay, since he/she is technically both genders? If gender is so clearly determined at birth, why would God (or whatever moral agent my opponent chooses) allow such ambiguity? Is it not possible that a few people are born with the "wrong" sex organs (a male testosterone developed brain paired with a uterus, for example)? I look forward to an interesting debate. [1] http://www.time.com... [2] http://www.newscientist.com... [3] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com... [4] http://www.bidstrup.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.intersexinitiative.org...

e4ad2958-2019-04-18T17:52:22Z-00002-000

Countermeasures 1) Harm Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful. Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects. 2) Individual choice As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants. Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be. BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD: "But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals. " If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be. Thanks. 3) Money Pro seemed to repeat the argument of "ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the "useful vs not that useful". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone. Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed. Thanks and God bless

5ce3b67d-2019-04-18T19:10:37Z-00004-000

Thank you for your quick response. I will begin with defending my arguments. "Schools will not be able to charge the same prices..." My video is simply an exapmle of the fat that it IS possible. Food does not have to be internationally recognized, but by simply using decent ingredients. Look at this: http://www.thelunchlady.ca.... Simple, yet effective. A nice, balanced meal works for the same price as fast food. "Lee has tried making her own burritos, her..." My previous video and the link above proves this wrong. "This a an absurd source and statistic..." How is this absurd? You yourself agreed that she was a world-renowned chef. "In non insulin-dependent diabetes, heredity may be a factor..." Wow. I thought that my opponent would be above this. In the text, it says that heredity MAY be a factor. The scientists aren't even sure whether it is or not! But right below that, it claims that being overweight increases your chances of getting it. This is usually unhealthy eating with not enough excersize. "ADHD is a genetic disorder.." Again, I am baffled. "Certain components of the diet, including food additives and sugar, can have clear effects on behavior. Experts believe that food additives may exacerbate ADHD, and that refined sugar may be to blame for a range of abnormal behaviors." Are you sure you are using the right sources? "Fast food chains do give plops about health..." Nutrition tables are mandated by the government. Advertisements are actually made to attract customers: ad⋅ver⋅tis⋅ing   /ˈ�dvərˌtaɪzɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ad-ver-tahy-zing] Show IPA –noun 1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., exp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising. 2. paid announcements; advertisements. 3. the profession of planning, designing, and writing advertisements. http://dictionary.reference.com... "Children gorge on these..." A recent study by Yale University proved that children are not likely to make up for junk food not eaten at school. "And if children to do come for 5 more portions at one time then that's absurd." Agreed. This was just an overstatement to highlight the significance of the statement. I await your response.

684e85fe-2019-04-18T17:48:05Z-00001-000

By the way I was using a mobile device and it automactically copy and paste and plus this is my first debate I am only getting used to this debate website. Most chemicals in cigars also may pass on to others near the main smoker. This causes double the deaths because of carbon monoxide. They is only for the U.S.A so if a smoker wanted to still smoke he could still move to a different country to live in. Many kids are ding from there parents. If adults also smoke they make there house more unpleasant making them anti-social. Well this is it for my last debate on round three I am 13 so I am not great in spelling so I apologize for that but still, good job and good luck.

684e85fe-2019-04-18T17:48:05Z-00003-000

They should have by now but they haven't. Should they make cigars illegal? It kills many and makes them waist a lot of money. They also cause cancer and make it harder to breath. I don't think they should make it legal. True they cause cancer after a while but they also have nicotine. Once they start it is hard for them to stop. When they do try they might succeed but they still are damaged forever. Once they start they also start having like 1-3 packs a day. It might be for cultures but it still kills. If they could they should have laws to limit packs to one per week using a license. They could then limit deaths.

ed875bcb-2019-04-18T16:09:15Z-00004-000

Two wrongs do not make a right. My opponent should know this. One person kills another and he says he should be killed as well. Death is not a punishment. Life in prison is indeed a punishment. My opponent argues using his opinion. I argued using facts in my previous debate about his topic. Did my opponent even take the time to read that debate thoroughly? I clearly won and crushed my opponent, showing that the death penalty should not exist. My opponent has made a claim, yet did not provide a source. That is negligence. If my opponent wants to win this debate, I would suggest that he writes a thorough argument, effectively arguing his stance.

4d38534a-2019-04-18T18:36:42Z-00004-000

Marijuana should be legalized i have 3 arguments why A1- Marijuana Has many health Benefits A2- If used correctly it can help treatments A-3 Alcohol Was Illegal and now it is Legal I am going to touch up on my Arguments now A1- Marijuana has many health Benefits it has many health benefits it know that it can take away cancer cant take away pain A-2 IF used correctly it can help in the treatment If managed correctly is can help over 14 diseases such as Cancer and Alzheimer;s, appetite loss, glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, pain, weight loss, arthritis, dystonia, insomnia, seizures, and tourette's syndrome A-3 Alcohol used to be Illegal and they voted and it is now legal why not legalize marijuana and alcohol has a more dealth tole then Marijuana there were 22,072 related deaths in 2006 for alcohol related. 13,050 more deaths came from alcoholic liver disease. To this day there has not been any recorded credible deaths caused by the effects of marijuana

68bad5ca-2019-04-18T17:03:51Z-00001-000

I am going to give my adversary one last round to re-spawn before I offer any points. since he is asking for a change in the status quo, it is on him to present a valid case as to why this should be banned.

f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00003-000

My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating "game" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of "cleaning" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he "naturally" had 40"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has "given my blood the legal "boost" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. "25 There is one way to boost an athlete"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. "By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. " There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.

66bd90ea-2019-04-18T18:08:50Z-00009-000

8,000 character limit, 72 hours to vote, 1 week voting period, 5 rounds.I will be arguing for this issue, Ron-Paul will be arguing against. First round acceptance only. This will be regular debate format, 2 cases in round 2, rebuttals for the rest of the debate.

7bfe5e7a-2019-04-18T16:40:47Z-00006-000

For the record I would like to sa I am not as good as you think. Also my skills are lacking so I decided to join the debate to see what the other side says and me myself use to be for gun control till I realized it would not help so now I would like to say thank you for this debate. Please no google docs because I cannot copy and paste and I will have to use a few rebuttals so type your argument here.Rebuttal 1 From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Guns in the home are correlated with higher risk, as the likelihood of being involved in an accidental shooting, homicide, or suicide attempts increases by 22 times due to their presence. These are far more common than their usage in self-defense as well. States with more guns, on average, are 9 times as likely to die due to accidental shootings.[2] As my case reduces levels of gun ownership, this would be linearly improved,You said states with many guns have a high chance of crime rate going up. A study has been shown that states with a all out gun ban has more crime than U.S and also U.S is not the number 1 hotspot for crime. Matter a fact crime rate has made a decrease. It is the parents fault for keeping their children with a gun in there hand. Parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership but the cause of ' homicide school shootings and sucides after' is the fault of the parents. True gun ownership needs to be improved but the government gives permits to people that are trusted and has the right to wield guns.Rebuttal 2Essentially, guns make suicide too easy. They're far more likely to occur in the homes of gun owners, especially among adolescents. People who committed suicide in a given year were found to be 17 times as likely to have lived in homes with guns than people who did not.[3] States that perform background checks and have higher restrictions have lower suicide and homicide deaths.[4] What's more, states with lower gun ownership "had similar rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, as well as similar rates of suicide that did not involve firearms, like hanging and poisoning. But the number of people who died by shooting themselves was almost four times greater in the high-gun states."[3] Even those with experience and training in using a firearm could benefit from additional restrictions.[5] Veterans who commit suicide use a gun 70% of the time.[3] Therefore, increased background checks to remove guns from individuals with psychiatric illnesses could stand to reduce these rates. About making sucide easy you said guns make it too easy. House knives are used for sucide and it makes it easy because a,l you gotta do is stab yourself which would not even take minutes and should we put a strict law to that? Also things like hammers make sucide easy and should we put a restriction on what type of people who should use hammers? (3) Backround checks are made to see if a person does not have a permit to have a gun but this has nothing to do with the government controlling all guns. Rebuttal 3This is a bit more involved. I'll start by talking about mass shootings, then move to individual crimes that simply involve the usage of guns. Now, why would this reduce mass shootings? Reducing the availability of legal avenues of acquisition would be likely to reduce incidence. Of the 143 guns possessed by these people, more than " were obtained legally.[6] This is true whether we're talking about workplace or school shootings.[7] If my opponent would like, I can cover specific instances in my next post. These often included assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles, though any gun would have a higher likelihood of being denied to them, especially due to psychiatric evaluation being more often taken into account.Individual criminals that utilize guns as a means to an end will also have less access. They will have far fewer no loopholes through which to acquire their weapons legally, so anyone with a criminal background will often be denied based on background checks. Access to the most dangerous rifles would be made more difficult and more expensive. Most of those who engage in criminal activities are poor.[8] A tax on certain guns makes them less likely to purchase them, since that will make the cost untenable for many. That means reduced access to the most destructive firearms. People can steal guns and come in gangs. Even making the guns expensive people like mafias who are highly intelligent can come in grup gangs and out number the cops and steal the guns. Not all criminals are poor and if you got that from the web it could be a assertion. And handguns can be destructive in there own way also those guns are very acurate and powerful also. Criminals can be smart and find ways to snatch guns so making the price expensive wont change anything.Rebuttal 4This will help law enforcement spot gun traffickers. It's a method of prevention that will stop some loss of life. Currently, private sales don't require these checks, and thus online and gun show sales are often unregulated in this regard. It is estimated that background checks have prevented almost 2 million criminals and dangerous individuals from buying guns, and as such, this actually has received the support of a large majority of the country.[14]Back round checks could help but it cannot stop criminals from obtaining a gun, yet we should have them but they wont stop criminals from taking a gun. Criminals will take a weapon no matter what. They could have knives, hammers, and bombs and still cause havok.Opening argumentGuns can decrease crime harvard studies showed that with guns crime decreases but the facts to prove my point is not asserted- There has been a decrease in crime lately in some points most of it has to do with guns decreasing crime- Most citizens need to have guns. Reason why because criminals can have knives and since laws are stricter criminals can attack at random. Now people who would have a gun criminals would be scared.Guns are not the only major issue of crime. Terrorist who bomb planes and kill almost 3000 people is very serious and there needs to be stricter laws on that. And by placing a stricter law to take guns away from others and taking controll is going against the second amendment which gives the right for all who needs a gun for protection to have one in need.Sourceshttp://guninformation.org...http://www.studymode.com... http://www.buzzle.com...; http://www.veteranstoday.com... http://www.bostonmagazine.com...http://www.breitbart.com...http://gunssavelives.net... http://www.chacha.com...

1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00006-000

Students learn enough in the classroom. They do not need to go home and do more work when it is not needed.

d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00004-000

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for proffering this debate to me. It is a controversial topic and shall be an interesting one.ArgumentsFacts: Here is a list of things medical marijuana is used for: 1. AIDS treatment 2. Glaucoma 3. Nausea and vomiting 4. Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy 5. Pain caused by certain physiological disorders 6. Treatment of multiple sclerosis 7. Symptoms of Parkinson’s disease 8. Appetite stimulant for malnutrition 9. Treatment of epilepsy 10. Migraine headaches Why it should not be used: However, according to webmd.com, "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system", "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse", "marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]", and "it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD)." Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center).As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person.ConclusionIn conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis. I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.Works Cited"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD." WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.webmd.com...;."Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana." Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.

d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00005-000

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking jamccartney for choosing to debate this topic with me once again. In our last debate ( http://www.debate.org... ) there were external factors that caused it to not be a very sophisticated debate. I was on vacation. The motel had horrible internet. Now after that debate has been completed, and our opinions have strengthened and we have matured, we can debate this again. I thank jamccartney again for accepting. Main Argument As you know, I am a supporter of marijuana usage for medical purposes. My opponent is not. Even after the last debate, I still do not understand how he can oppose it. My opinions have strengthened since then and I hope to persuade my opponent, the viewers, and the judges that my stance is the correct one.I will begin by defining what marijuana is. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, marijuana is "[t]he cannabis plant" or "[a] preparation made from the dried flower clusters and leaves of the cannabis plant, usually smoked or eaten to induce euphoria." We will utilize both definitions in this debate. Why is this? Well, medical marijuana comes in all shapes and forms. It can be smoked, injected, eaten, or otherwise consumed by drinking or other methods. Marijuana can be used to successfully treat the following things: "1. Treatment for symptoms of AIDS 2. Glaucoma 3. Neuropathy (diseases affecting the nerves or nerve cells) Ex. epilepsy 4. Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy 5. Pain caused by structural or psycho-physiological disorders 6. Muscular spasticity and limb pain (multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury) 7. Symptoms of movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, Tourette’s syndrome 8. Appetite stimulant for diseases of malnutrition (cachexia or starvation) 9. Nausea and vomiting (general) 10. Migraine headaches" Now, I believe my opponent is aware that marijuana is a drug not commonly connected with overdoses. I do not believe he has ever heard of an overdose of medical marijuana or addiction to it because neither have I or most people on this Earth. If he believes it is unsafe, he is not aware of the facts. My source says, "[t]he Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not approved smoked cannabis for medical reasons. Although some aruge that this is a political decision, rather than a medical or scientific decision based on research and analysi, the FDA has approved two drugs, Marinol and Cesamet, for therapeutic uses in the U.S. These drugs contain active ingredients that are present in botanical marijuana but come in the form of a pill. Nonetheless, that the FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease seems rather short-sighted." One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums, and other forms of medications, but medical marijuana is rarely a substance that is addicted to. I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging, but you are aware that medical marijuana overdoses and addictions are virtually unheard of, yes? In my previous debate about this topic, I said, "[h]owever, medical marijuana is the only known medicine today that can successfully diagnose epilepsy. [M]odern epilepsy medicines often fail and cannabis is often the better choice. It is virtually unheard of that there is a thing such as a marijuana overdose. It does not simply occur. However, overdoses can easily occur when taking pills, tablets, or serums." Marijuana, when abused and overused, will be termination instead of salvation. I argue, however, that medical marijuana can be salvation for victims of epilepsy and other such conditions when used properly. Marijuana, like other plants, of course, can be bred in order to have certain traits. Recreational marijuana makes you high and has no health benefits for the user. However, marijuana can be bred to have a low percentage of chemicals that cause you to be high and a high percentage of chemicals that affect the desired parts of the body in question. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures.THC is what causes one to be high. Breeding marijuana to have low THC and high CBD will be effective. This, along with other genetic modifications, will make marijuana a safe treatment. I believe I have made my point. I did rush this argument a little for I did not have much time, but I believe my argument is sufficient. I now close my argument and allow my opponent to commence his statements. Bibliography"Cannabis (drug)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 2 May. 2014. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana/>. Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition ed. : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. Print."Top 10 medical uses for marijuana ." . Addiction Blog, 8 Feb. 2011. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://drug.addictionblog.org...;.

c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000

Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn’t enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: ‘a’ (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that ‘reason 1’ is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 2 and 6’ ‘b’‘c’ What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn’t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don’t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn’t have been employed and wouldn’t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn’t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. ‘d’ Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators’ fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure’s fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 3’ A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ ‘e’ This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 5’ ‘f’ This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 7’ ‘g’ I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled ‘Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis’ [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn’t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school – e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro’s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for ‘Reason 8’ ‘h’ 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro’s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn’t ‘collective bargaining, state law and federal law’ be unnecessary too because ‘job protections granted through court rulings’ can offer this protection already? Wouldn’t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I’ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: ‘i’ The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. ‘It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is ‘not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.’ In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn’t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her – not only is it unsupportive of her argument – it is even against it. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’ I have explained in my Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn’t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (‘j’) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for "high standard"’ Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. ‘k’ This, I have already explained why it is not true in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: Pro failed to support ‘reason 1’ with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. ‘l’ If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro’s assertion ‘m’ (incidentally, she uses the wrong ‘then’) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn’t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. ‘n’ [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro’s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn’t. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro’s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro’s arguments heavily rely on ‘appeal to emotion’ and ‘circular reasoning’. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...

c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000

Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for "academic freedom"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: "Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. "(Rebuttal for "high standard"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: "Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. " This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.