Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 11

b186eedb-2019-04-18T13:33:13Z-00005-000

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between," says Mother Teresa. Abortion, what does this really mean? The definition of abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. About 42 million women in the entire world with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. Abortion is a big controversial topic, people believe abortion should be illegal and others think it should stay legal. Why would someone want to kill an innocent little life? It"s not their fault people made mistakes and now they"re the ones having to pay for it. Abortion should be illegal because abortions are not safe, laws are protecting unborn babies, and fetuses can feel pain. Abortion should have never been legal.

fd4c46d1-2019-04-18T11:16:26Z-00000-000

No. Cholate milk sucks, And it has more sugar than you are supposed to drink in a day! The vitamins you get ARE important-but milk is not the best place to get them!

547294f-2019-04-18T19:56:11Z-00003-000

(Again, dont really believe in this, but judge based on the arguments) First off, i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad. In the last couple years the obesity epidemic in the US and the western world has being a serious problem. Studies have shown that smokers tend to be slimmer than others, Jodi Flaws at the university of maryland school of medicine "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies......Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both." There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias (a severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.)"Many dementias go hand-in-hand with a loss of chemical receptors in the brain that just happen to be stimulated by nicotine. Smoking seems to bolster these receptors, and smokers have more of them." (Guardian Unlimited New Media) The studies show that smokers may have more to lose before they start losing their minds. "It does seem that nicotine has a preventative effect" says Roger Bullock, a specialist in dementia and director of the Kingshill Research Centre in Swindon.

10cdf65f-2019-04-18T12:30:37Z-00000-000

Abstract Although child vaccination rates remain high, some parental concern persists that vaccines might cause autism. Three specific hypotheses have been proposed: (1) the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining, which allows the entrance of encephalopathic proteins; (2) thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system; and (3) the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system. We will discuss the genesis of each of these theories and review the relevant epidemiological evidence. A worldwide increase in the rate of autism diagnoses"likely driven by broadened diagnostic criteria and increased awareness"has fueled concerns that an environmental exposure like vaccines might cause autism. Theories for this putative association have centered on the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, thimerosal, and the large number of vaccines currently administered. However, both epidemiological and biological studies fail to support these claims. MMR On 28 February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, and colleagues [1] published a paper in The Lancet that described 8 children whose first symptoms of autism appeared within 1 month after receiving an MMR vaccine. All 8 of these children had gastrointestinal symptoms and signs and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia revealed on endoscopy. From these observations, Wakefield postulated that MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually nonpermeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development. Several issues undermine the interpretation by Wakefield et al. [1] of this case series. First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Because W64;50,000 British children per month received MMR vaccine between ages 1 and 2 years"at a time when autism typically presents"coincidental associations were inevitable. Indeed, given the prevalence of autism in England in 1998 of 1 in 2000 children [2], W64;25 children per month would receive a diagnosis of the disorder soon after receiving MMR vaccine by chance alone. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third, gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides. Fourth, measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Indeed, a recent study by Hornig et al. [3] found that the measles vaccine virus genome was not detected more commonly in children with or without autism. Fifth, putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. In contrast, the genes that have been associated with autism spectrum disorder to date have been found to code for endogenous proteins that influence neuronal synapse function, neuronal cell adhesion, neuronal activity regulation, or endosomal trafficking [4]. Although no data supporting an association between MMR vaccine and autism existed and a plausible biological mechanism was lacking, several epidemiologic studies were performed to address parental fears created by the publication by Wakefield et al. [1] (table 1). Fortunately, several features of large-scale vaccination programs allowed for excellent descriptive and observational studies"specifically, large numbers of subjects, which generated substantial statistical power; high-quality vaccination records, which provided reliable historical data; multinational use of similar vaccine constituents and schedules; electronic medical records, which facilitated accurate analysis of outcome data; and the relatively recent introduction of MMR vaccine in some countries, which allowed for before and after comparisons. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Ecological studies.Researchers in several countries performed ecological studies that addressed the question of whether MMR vaccine causes autism. Such analyses employ large databases that compare vaccination rates with autism diagnoses at the population level. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992 who were identified by computerized health records from 8 health districts [5]. Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed. Further, MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population. Also, investigators did not observe a clustering of autism diagnoses relative to the time that children received MMR vaccine, nor did they observe a difference in age at autism diagnosis between those vaccinated and not vaccinated or between those vaccinated before or after 18 months of age. These authors also found no differences in autism rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children when they extended their analysis to include a longer time after MMR exposure or a second dose of MMR [6]. Also in the United Kingdom, researchers performed a time-trend analysis using the General Practice Research Database"a high-quality, extensively validated electronic medical record with virtually complete vaccination data [7]. More than 3 million person-years of observation during 1988"1999 confirmed an increase in autism diagnoses despite stable MMR vaccination rates. In California, researchers compared year-specific MMR vaccination rates of kindergarten students with the yearly autism case load of the California Department of Developmental Services during 1980"1994 [8]. As was observed in the United Kingdom, the increase in the number of autism diagnoses did not correlate with MMR vaccination rates. In Canada, researchers estimated the prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder with respect to MMR vaccination in 27,749 children from 55 schools in Quebec [9]. Autism rates increased coincident with a decrease in MMR vaccination rates. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied, including a strict diagnosis of autism. Additional population-based studies considered the relationship between MMR vaccine and the "new variant" form of autism proposed by Wakefield et al. [1]"specifically, developmental regression with gastrointestinal symptoms. Although it is difficult to analyze such a phenomenon when it is unclear that one exists (which complicates the formulation of a case definition), conclusions may be gleaned from the data with respect to developmental regression alone (i.e., autism irrespective of coincident bowel problems). In England, researchers performed a cross-sectional study of 262 autistic children and demonstrated no difference in age of first parental concerns or rate of developmental regression by exposure to MMR vaccine [10]. No association between developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms was observed. In London, an analysis of 473 autistic children used the 1987 introduction of MMR to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts [11]. The incidence of developmental regression did not differ between cohorts, and the authors observed no difference in the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated autistic children. Two conclusions are evident from these data. First, the explicit consideration of developmental regression among autistic children does not alter the consistent independence of MMR vaccine and autism. Second, these data argue against the existence of a new variant form of autism. Retrospective, observational studies.Four retrospective, observational studies addressed the relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. In the United Kingdom, 71 MMR-vaccinated autistic children were compared with 284 MMR-vaccinated matched control children through use of the Doctor's Independent Network, a general practice database [12]. The authors observed no differences between case and control children in practitioner consultation rates"a surrogate for parental concerns about their child's development"within 6 months after MMR vaccination, which suggests that the diagnosis of autism was not temporally related to MMR vaccination. In Finland, using national registers, researchers linked hospitalization records to vaccination records in 535,544 children vaccinated during 1982"1986 [13]. Of 309 children hospitalized for autistic disorders, no clustering occurred relative to the time of MMR vaccination. In Denmark, again using a national registry, researchers determined vaccination status and autism diagnosis in 537,303 children born during 1991"1998 [14]. The authors observed no differences in the relative risk of autism between those who did and those who did not receive MMR vaccine. Among autistic children, no relationship between date of vaccination and development of autism was observed. In metropolitan Atlanta, using a developmental surveillance program, researchers compared 624 autistic children with 1824 matched control children [15]. Vaccination records were obtained from state immunization forms. The authors observed no differences in age at vaccination between autistic and nonautistic children, which suggests that early age of MMR vaccine exposure was not a risk factor for autism. Prospective observational studies.Capitalizing on a long-term vaccination project maintained by the National Board of Health, investigators in Finland performed 2 prospective cohort studies. Researchers prospectively recorded adverse events associated with MMR-vaccinated children during 1982"1996 and identified 31 with gastrointestinal symptoms; none of the children developed autism [16]. A further analysis of this cohort revealed no vaccine-associated cases of autism among 1.8 million children [17]. Although this cohort was analyzed using a passive surveillance system, the complete absence of an association between gastrointestinal disease and autism after MMR vaccination was compelling. Thimerosal Thimerosal"50% ethylmercury by weight"is an antibacterial compound that has been used effectively in multidose vaccine preparations for >50 years [18] (thimerosal is not contained in live-virus vaccines, such as MMR). In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act mandated identification and quantification of mercury in all food and drugs; 2 years later, the US Food and Drug Administration found that children might be receiving as much as 187.5 "g of mercury within the first 6 months of life. Despite the absence of data suggesting harm from quantities of ethylmercury contained in vaccines, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service recommended the immediate removal of mercury from all vaccines given to young infants [19]. Widespread and predictable misinterpretation of this conservative, precautionary directive, coupled with a public already concerned by a proposed but unsubstantiated link between vaccination and autism, understandably provoked concern among parents, which led to the birth of several antimercury advocacy groups. However, because the signs and symptoms of autism are clearly distinct from those of mercury poisoning, concerns about mercury as a cause of autism were"similar to those with MMR vaccine"biologically implausible [20]; children with mercury poisoning show characteristic motor, speech, sensory, psychiatric, visual, and head circumference changes that are either fundamentally different from those of or absent in children with autism. Consistent with this, a study performed by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention years later showed that mercury in vaccines did not cause even subtle signs or symptoms of mercury poisoning [21]. Despite the biological implausibility of the contention that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism, 7 studies"again descriptive or observational"were performed (table 2). Four other studies have been reviewed in detail elsewhere [28] but are not discussed here because their methodology is incomplete and unclear and, thus, cause difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Ecological studies.Three ecological studies performed in 3 different countries compared the incidence of autism with thimerosal exposure from vaccines. In each case, the nationwide removal of thimerosal"which occurred in 1992 in Europe and in 2001 in the United States"allowed robust comparisons of vaccination with thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free products, as follows: In Sweden and Denmark, researchers found a relatively stable incidence of autism when thimerosal-containing vaccines were in use (1980"1990), including years when children were exposed to as much as 200 "g of ethylmercury (concentrations similar to peak US exposures) [22]. However, in 1990, a steady increase in the incidence of autism began in both countries and continued through the end of the study period in 2000, despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992. In Denmark, researchers performed a study comparing the incidence of autism in children who had received 200 "g (1961"1970), 125 "g (1970"1992), or 0 "g of thimerosal (1992"2000) and again demonstrated no relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism [23]. In Quebec, researchers grouped 27,749 children from 55 schools by date of birth and estimated thimerosal exposure on the basis of the corresponding Ministry of Health vaccine schedules. School records were obtained to determine age-specific rates of pervasive developmental disorder [9]. Thimerosal exposure and pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis were found to be independent variables. Similar to previous analyses, the highest rates of pervasive developmental disorder were found in cohorts exposed to thimerosal-free vaccines. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied. Cohort studies.Four cohort studies that examined thimerosal exposure and autism have been performed, as follows: In Denmark, researchers examined >1200 children with autism that was identified during 1990"1996, which comprised W64;3 million person-years. They found that the risk of autism did not differ between children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines and those vaccinated with thimerosal-free vaccines or between children who received greater or lower quantities of thimerosal [24]. They also found that the rates of autism increased after the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines. In the United States, using the Vaccine Safety Data Link, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined 140,887 US children born during 1991"1999, including >200 children with autism [25]. The researchers found no relationship between receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In England, researchers prospectively followed 12,810 children for whom they had complete vaccination records who were born during 1991"1992, and they found no relationship between early thimerosal exposure and deleterious neurological or psychological outcomes [26]. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated the vaccination records of 100,572 children born during 1988"1997, using the General Practice Research Database, 104 of whom were affected with autism [27]. No relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism diagnosis was observed. Too Many Vaccines When studies of MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines failed to show an association with autism, alternative theories emerged. The most prominent theory suggests that the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system and creates an interaction with the nervous system that triggers autism in a susceptible host. This theory was recently popularized in the wake of a concession by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with regard to the case of a 9-year-old girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency whose encephalopathy, which included features of autism spectrum disorder, was judged to have worsened following the receipt of multiple vaccines at age 19 months [29]. Despite reassurances by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's action should not be interpreted as scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, many in the lay press and the public have not been reassured. The notion that children might be receiving too many vaccines too soon and that these vaccines either overwhelm an immature immune system or generate a pathologic, autism-inducing autoimmune response is flawed for several reasons: Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually [31]. Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980 [30]. Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child's immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4"6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines. multiple vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. Vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines [33,",35]. In other words, vaccination does not suppress the immune system in a clinically relevant manner. However, infections with some vaccine-preventable diseases predispose children to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens [36, 37]. Therefore, the available data suggest that vaccines do not weaken the immune system. Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccina-tion precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism. No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines. Conclusions Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child's immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads. Acknowledgments Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck. J.S.G.: no conflicts.

10cdf65f-2019-04-18T12:30:37Z-00003-000

Let's Start with how Jenny McCarthy is not a source for science. She's not a scientist, does not study these things, and continues to perpetuate this debunked myth. I would love to see a source where a Dr. said, and other doctors have backed them up, that vaccines caused her sons autism. You admit that all of these medical scientific institutions agree that there is no correlation between autism and vaccines. All medical procedures and medicines have side effects. There will always be a tiny percentage that the vaccine or medicine or whatever may not work on everyone and may have adverse side effects. You are warned of the side effects before you are given whatever it is. That is the trade-off for not having smallpox anymore, almost getting rid of polio, and many other diseases. Autism is not one of those side effects (and autism-like symptoms is not autism...). Not to mention that vaccines are very important to keep diseases under control and not go backward to widespread disease and death. "Myth #1: Vaccines cause autism. The widespread fear that vaccines increase risk of autism originated with a 1997 study published by Andrew Wakefield, a British surgeon. The article was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism in British children. The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license and the paper was retracted from The Lancet. Nonetheless, the hypothesis was taken seriously, and several other major studies were conducted. None of them found a link between any vaccine and the likelihood of developing autism. Today, the true causes of autism remain a mystery, but to the discredit of the autism-vaccination link theory, several studies have now identified symptoms of autism in children well before they receive the MMR vaccine. And even more recent research provides evidence that autism develops in utero, well before a baby is born or receives vaccinations." http://www.publichealth.org... To ask why people still believe it may be true, to me is a silly question. Many people believe in many things that aren't true. There are people who think the world is flat. People remaining unconvinced does not equal something is true.

3e3318ae-2019-04-18T12:20:39Z-00003-000

Alright, I will offer rebuttals to each of my opponent's points, and I thank them for organizing their debate similar to mine. It makes it easier for organizing rebuttals.Re: Prisoners are not currently part of societyI would argue that they are actually part of society still. They are just a different part of society. While they don't interact with the majority within society, the reason I believe they are part of society is because they are still governed by the same people in government as we are. It should be noted that one definition of the word society is " The community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations." [5] Prisoners are still living in the same country as us, and have to abide by the same laws and customs as us, and so would fit under this definition of society. I would argue that they only need to fit under one definition of society to be considered under society. Additionally, prisoners aren't completely separate from the rest of us. We can still visit prisoners whenever we want to essentially. Arguing prisoners are not part of society would be similar to arguing the Amish are not part of society. For the most part, they are segregated from the rest of us, and live essentially in a different time. We can visit them, just like we can visit prisoners. Maybe this isn't a perfect comparison, but it was the only one I can think of. Re: disallowing the right to vote acts as a deterrent I believe the pros of allowing prisoners to vote, as I discussed above, outweigh this con. Additionally, what about the people who are convicted who are actually innocent? I know you weren't going to respond to what I said yet, but I look forward to your response about this. So, I would like to ask you, does disallowing criminals the right to vote justify disallowing non-criminals who are convicted? Does the deterrence of committing crime justify preventing law-abiding citizens from voting? Additionally, how much does removing the right to vote actually deter people from committing crime? I actually don't think it would deter all that much. For one, many people don't even vote. What percentage of criminals actually vote to begin with, prior to being incarcerated? This is something that would need to be considered. If they don't even vote to begin with, it wouldn't be a detterrent at all. Re: Candidate CampaigningActually, I don't think this would be much of a problem. Do you realize how many people would probably be upset over the fact a candidate released murderers or child molesters early? There are far more people who are law-abiding citizens than those who become imprisoned for crime. The law-abiding citizens would be opposed to releasing the murderers and violent offenders early. It's true this would likely apply to non-violent offenders, but a vast majority of people think non-violent offenders should be released from prison early anyways[6]. I tried looking for public opinion about releasing murderers, violent offenders, and sexual offenders early, but my searching has proved no results. I did find a specific article from breitbart talking about opinion of Jerry Brown's releasing of violent criminals early, but I don't trust breitbart and they are known for having extreme right-wing bias anyways. So, other than that, I have not found anything regarding this. Perhaps my opponent would have better luck? This would be relevant for either of us to find, and help potentially either one of our arguments. Re: Prisoners are imprisoned as they are considered dangerous to society.But at the same time, how are laws that are seen as unjust supposed to be gotten rid of when a good portion of the people who believe it should be gotten rid of, are imprisoned? So, while it does prevent people who would not have society's best interest from voting, it also prevents people who do match society's opinion on the matter from voting. I don't think I will need to repeat myself about the marijuana issue, but that is specifically what I refer to. Additionally, I don't think it would make much of a difference in terms of getting candidates who don't have the people's interest at heart. The people who are not prisoners greatly outnumber the people who are prisoners. How much influence could the prisoners honestly have on getting a candidate who would make America unsafe from crime?I believe I am finished with my rebuttals, and will turn this over to my opponent to rebut my original arguments. Sources:[5] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://www.pewtrusts.org...

dd869c53-2019-04-18T18:29:24Z-00006-000

If we abolished Birthright Citizenship, then we would have to keep up with all the babies that are being born every minute in the United States which would be very hard to handle for the Government. Even though its true that having millions of immigrants have babies and have their babies become citizenship at that moment they are born is a bit unfair. But those immigrants should have their records check to see if they have citizenship in the country. If they don't, they should obviously be marked down on a list and have their information recorded so that they can apply and get citizenship. The parents should take the test to gain citizenship even though they have the baby and if they don't. The Government can fine them for not doing so. You speak of the country to be equal and fair but in reality, it can never be unless everyone's mind set is set to that. The Government has not been fair with us in the past couple of years so how can they care about abolishing birthright citizenship when they have bigger issues at hand? Having birthright citizenship should not be abolished because its too much work to handle to handle with all the citizens. Knowing that it is unfair to some people, but in life, everything is unfair and will stay that way no matter what happens. So birthright citizenship is a smaller issue for the country which is why its still a law and that its not going to be abolished anytime soon.

8ef0697d-2019-04-18T11:19:04Z-00002-000

I believe in the right to protect myself through concealed-carry and to protect against a tyrannical government. NO FORFEITS PLEASE!

eada3b89-2019-04-18T12:09:35Z-00001-000

You say research shows Homosexuality is hereditary and that your sources prove this? I'm assuming you never bothered to read your sources before you posted them because not 1 of the 10 sources you site provides any evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. Why? Because they aren't scientific studies. They're theories made up by "born that way" activists. The only honest statement you made was when you quoted the American Psychological Association saying "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor."[1] That's scientific and it supports my side. In the words of homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos "certainly In my experience homosexuality is more nurture not nature" [5] Considering this is my ending statement here's what I'd like you to consider: It is a fact that Homosexuals have elevated health risks in everything from cancers to STDS[2] (some of which unpreventable and lethal) It is also a fact that Homosexuals are statistically more violent than heterosexuals[3] Heck they can't even naturally start a family! The point I'm making is that the Homosexual lifestyle is not a fun one. In fact it's a dangerous one that will cut your life short on average by 8-21 years![4] If your born this way you have no hope. Your chances of a better life ended on day 1. This is why it has been my goal in this debate to show that you can make a choice. A choice that will benefit you greatly. In the words of Milo Yiannopoulos (Gay) "I would choose not to be gay if I could, and everyone should!"[5] The good news is that you can choose. So It's up to you now so choose wisely. Thank you very much for debating me and good luck! [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://glma.org... [3] https://www.cdc.gov... [4] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com... [5]

eada3b89-2019-04-18T12:09:35Z-00000-000

Your sexual behaviour is a choice, but not our sexuality. Your sexual behaviour can cause harm , but not your sexuality. All a person needs to do is look to themselves and ask yourself; was your own sexuality a choice, no, no one's is. After 1973 Every major mental health organization in the United States has affirmed strongly that homosexuality is neither an illness nor a choice and cannot be changed, and is caused by a complex mix of biological factors whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb (nature) and cultural, social and other environmental factors which are the total sum of the experiences of a child or adolescent and their effect on him or her (nurture). This is the stance of: The American Medical Association The American Psychiatric Association The American Psychological Association The American Psychoanalytic Association The American Academy of Pediatrics The National Association of Social Workers The American Counseling Association The American Association of School Administrators The American Federation of Teachers The National Association of School Psychologists The National Education Association And me

311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00009-000

In the world of sports, it is clear that there are certain sports that take more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals then other sports. In the argument that hockey is better than football, it is clear that hockey takes more athleticism, skill, and fundamentals than football, overall and in general.

561f3f07-2019-04-18T18:43:03Z-00001-000

I feel like my opponent misunderstand what I wrote. I never claimed that I had made two distinct points. In the beginning of my opening case, I bolded the statement that personal autonomy and prohibition on euthanasia were at odds. I then proceeded to respond to two objections that one could bring to that statement, namely that they are not at odds or that we do not have personal autonomy to begin with. Before I move on to refuting my opponent's points I will defend my own standing point that one cannot respect another's personal autonomy while denying them the right to end their lives when they wish to. The only evidence my opponent brings to the contrary is that "every male in the United States at the age of 18 have to sing up for "selective service", where he signs over his body to the U.S. government in the time of war." Put simply, the argument against personal autonomy goes that because one group regularly violates it, it never really existed. Imagine for a moment that a man steals your wallet from your packet. You promptly wrestle with him to get it back and as you do this he repeats over and over, "What's wrong? That guy over there just got mugged too! Everyone has their rights violated and things stolen so we must have never had those rights or property to begin with!" Would any person in their right mind agree with this? Furthermore, in my original argument, I asked my opponent why he thought that a casual observer had more of a right to another's body then they did, providing that you are not hurting anyone else with your body. I searched through my opponent's round and found no answer. He only continued the mantra that no one in their right mind would want to die when they don't have to and so patients requesting euthanasia should be stripped of the right. But now on to my opponent's case.Patients requesting euthanasia are depressed.My opponent writes that "I, and many medical experts believe that they wouldn't want to continue being Euthanized after they were curedof this depression." But why is this even relevant? I am not arguing that it is wise to request euthanasia. I have never been terminally ill or in immense pain to want that. I am arguing that even if someone's decision could be harmful to themselves in the long run, no one has any right to stop them, so long as they do not hurt other's in the course of killing themselves.Furthermore, I can wholy concede that the majority of euthanasia requesting patients are clinically depressed and still be in the right. It is because of the classification of depression as compared to other mental disorders. Depression, while having serious effects at times, is not the same as schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders where people cannot always be held responsible for their actions. If depression-afflicted patients can really not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own persona affairs, then we must also barr depressed patients from making other life decisions that they would not make in their right minds such as getting married, having children, or choosing a career. What is the difference. In both cases, I might disagree with their choice and so I use the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder to control their own private actions.On a further note, the fact that my opponent tried to use the fact that people's personal autonomy is already violated by the government makes his main point completely unnecessary. He writes that "After that, your body isn't your own, for you cannot end your life(which isn't allowed anyway) or decide not to fight, for you will be persecuted and arrested." Notice that in the darkened part of the sentence, my opponent mentions that it is already illegal to end one's life. So by his own rationale against personal autonomy(that the military alrady violates it), his main point is made completely irrelevant. For if the draft proves we are not autonomous agents then the fact that suicide is illegal further show that we have no right to kill ourselves regardless of our psychological state. So my opponent must either drop his main point(which doesn't help his case anyways since it doesn't autonomy supersedes mental condition) or drop his argument against personal autonomy(which would again make his first point irrelevant).Terminally ill diseases can be properly researched.My opponent argues that I did not provide reason for one to believe that terminal diseases would not be cured for decades to come. But of course, as this is his own point, the onus is on him to show why terminally ill patients will start being cured before they die of their disease. His two sources were the fact that over 1/2 of cancer drugs in the last few years have made it to the market within half a year(irrelevant since I am talking about cures for these diseases, not something to help the pin or slightly elongate their life) and the fact that clinical trials are needed for cures or treatments to be found.On this last point I do agree. Drugs need to be tested before they can be administered but I do not see how this point is relevant. My opponent brought no evidence to suggest that all or even the majority of terminally ill patients would request physician assisted suicide. Patients who do wish to live and keep on fighting would no doubt volunteer for clinical trials as they do now. Legalizing euthanasia would not automatically make them suicidal.My opponent ends by asking why something that "would hinder medical research and end human life"? Of course my opponent brought zero evidence to suggest that the legalization of euthanasia would make all terminally ill patients suicidal. Also, this particular life ending practice is not the same as murder or even abortion. This is a wholly voluntary act by someone who surely has the right more than anyone. My opponent's only reason why they be able to is because they are not in their right mind and so are incapable of making decisions. But do we take away depressed people's licenses? Do we allow them to marry, to have children, to live just like the rest of us? If my opponent wishes to counter this, he must drop his faulty rationale of mental incompetence and concede that his main point has been completely refuted.I urge voters to see past my opponent's argument that the depressed cannot properly make life decisions or that we're right on the verge of curing terminal diseases. We must accept that people have the right to kill themselves, whether we agree with the decision or not and that legalizing euthanasia is not going to cause every terminal patient to end their lives. My opponent has brought no valid reason to either show that prohibition of euthanasia can coexist wih personal autonomy or that I have more of a right over your body than you do.

733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00001-000

Thank you. Your points are marked as >>. >>Why must those statements be honest by law? Is it because they are economically potent? Then pretty much every advertisement would be banned. Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. >>Some companies fail because of corporate malfeasance, but not all of them. In fact, the vast majority of them don't… [a]nd when one corporation fails, its productivity in society doesn't evaporate forever. I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. >>I do not think it is the business of the government … to manipulate what people feel, period. To say otherwise is paternalistic and naive at best, totalitarian at worst. I never said or implied that the government should manipulate the way people feel. I was discussing the social harm associated with the dishonest and fraudulent activity of corporate executives – which you argue does not exist because Corporate America is not homogeneous? You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. However, even if you intended to limit your argument to corporate failures caused by white collar crime, my position still holds. Corporations are connected to every part of society in some form or another. A corporate failure creates problems for society beyond its employees and investors. Corporations are suppliers, distributors and manufacturers of goods and products that keep society going. The effects of corporate failures, without distinction, are not isolated to investors and employees. A failure caused by white collar dishonesty just brings a criminal element into the mix and that is why SOX is there. SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. >>This current economic crisis is occurring for reasons that have nothing to do with embezzlement and everything to do with inflated government credit. I did not address the causes of the current economic crisis in the first round. I discussed the current economic crisis in the context of social harm, specifically in connection with Corporate America, which includes banks, car manufacturers and finance companies. You claim that a social harm does not exist. When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. >>[I]t is sufficient that investors detect "red flags[.]" Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. >>Whose interests do these concerns serve if not those of shareholders? Who would care about any of this besides the shareholders? SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. >>There are many ways for smart shareholders to protect themselves from liars and crooks. They can run the companies themselves, they can gather enough competent, trustworthy contacts to fill those positions, etc. Why should the government have a hand in this? Assuming it should, what are the limits of their involvement? A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. It is a barrier to crooked capitalism. It is a response to the pattern of corrupt and selfish behavior of Corporate America where criminal minds use numbers as weapons. The government should "have a hand in this" because it carries the authority of law and the teeth of enforceability. Businesses cannot put people behind bars. >>When you own a company, that company is yours. At the same time, a corporation is not nearly as concrete or vital to the owner's survival as, say, a house. You live in your house; your house is necessary for your warmth and protection, and so the police help protect it. The same is not true of a corporation. Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. I see nothing wrong with that purpose, and I support the government's role in effecting that goal.

733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00002-000

Thank you, DarrowDobaksa, for taking up this debate. I do, however, disagree with your disagreement on several of my points. :) >It merely says, if you're going to do business in this country, you're going to do it honestly and fairly... or else. Why must those statements be honest by law? Is it because they are economically potent? Then pretty much every advertisement would be banned. Yes, there is "truth in advertising" legislation, but if one were to take this principle to the logical conclusion, then advertisements that imply that their ultimately inconsequential products will make you happy should also be illegal. >I'd venture to say that a large portion of the population works for Corporate America in some capacity or another - a number in the tens of millions This statement assumes a homogeneity between corporations that doesn't necessarily exist. Some companies fail because of corporate malfeasance, but not all of them. In fact, the vast majority of them don't. And when one corporation fails, its productivity in society doesn't evaporate forever. Its factories don't burn down, and its employees don't commit mass suicide. Other corporations absorb what one corporation loses. Capitalism is exceedingly efficient on this point with or without the government. >On top of the financial effects of losing one's job or investments, the feeling that one can't trust one's employer or business partner to act with integrity and fairness stifles growth, prosperity and career aspirations within the workforce. I do not think it is the business of the government to manipulate what people feel about their career aspirations simply because it is not the business of the government to manipulate what people feel, period. To say otherwise is paternalistic and naive at best, totalitarian at worst. >However, the current economic climate, which is predicted to last for a substantial period, should tell you that corporate instability can have long-ranging effects both in terms of time and scope. This current economic crisis is occurring for reasons that have nothing to do with embezzlement and everything to do with inflated government credit. >Your second claims posits that investors can police their own investments. I agree. However, they can only do so to a certain extent. The natural structure of a corporation involves a dissemination of certain information that goes from top to bottom. Information that the average investor has limited to no involvement in gathering, analyzing, compiling, or presenting. I agree that there are limits to the ability of investors to collect specific information. However, it is sufficient that investors detect "red flags", as your citing of my Bernie Madoff example shows. When you're on the edge of an inner city neighborhood, you don't need to know the names of the gangs patrolling the area or the exact number of drug-related murders to know that you should avoid the area. All you need to do is look at the not-so-hidden dereliction of the area. The same is true of bad investments. >SOX does not protect investments as you state. In sum, it provides for auditor regulation, executive accountability, independent oversight, timely and accurate dissemination of information and stricter penalties. Whose interests do these concerns serve if not those of shareholders? Who would care about any of this besides the shareholders? >I agree that corporations should stand or fall on the strength its ideas and leaders, and if someone isn't smart enough to get his money out when the ship is sinking, then tough on him. However, I do have a problem with liars and crooks. There are many ways for smart shareholders to protect themselves from liars and crooks. They can run the companies themselves, they can gather enough competent, trustworthy contacts to fill those positions, etc. Why should the government have a hand in this? Assuming it should, what are the limits of their involvement? Ultimately, the private sector should be exactly that, private. When you own a company, that company is yours. At the same time, a corporation is not nearly as concrete or vital to the owner's survival as, say, a house. You live in your house; your house is necessary for your warmth and protection, and so the police help protect it. The same is not true of a corporation.

733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00004-000

First, some definitions. Sarbanes-Oxley Act: An act signed in 2002 mandating stringent and expensive corporate reporting standards for the sake of protecting investors. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Similar Legislation: Any other act mandating reporting standards for the sake of protecting investors. Social Benefit: A benefit to society as a whole external to a select group. Social Cost: A cost to society external to a select group. I have three reasons for believing that Sarbanes-Oxley and similar legislation should be repealed. First, the "social cost" of corporate failures are borne almost solely by the investors and the employees and therefore are not a concern of the people. Second, investors and employees are perfectly capable of policing said corporations without the help of the government, making government help in doing so something of a public subsidy to the corporate sector. Third, corporations that fail due to an inability to prevent fraud and negligence through organizational control or ability to boost morale and loyalty deserve to fail and should not be prevented from doing so by the government. My first point is that the costs of corporate failures are borne by a very select group of people, the employees of the failed corporations and their investors. The public does not really suffer from organizational collapses in anything but the short term. Factories are sold off, employees find new jobs, office buildings are re-branded. The fact that the suffering is limited to a select group of people would not, of course, normally stand on its own, since murder victims are also a select group of people. It is, however, substantially strengthened by my second point, that investors are perfectly capable of policing their investments themselves. Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was flagged by a small investment advising firm called Aksia long before it collapsed. . http://www.bloomberg.com... This goes to show that investors have all the resources needed to ensure the soundness of their investments and then some. Of course, the fact that investors are able to defend themselves from fraud does not mean that the government shouldn't step in. After all, even if one carries a gun, one can still reasonably expect the police to help him if he is mugged or robbed. However, if one is to assume that the government should protect investments, where does it end? Should the government have a hand in making sure that employees spend their time as productively as possible, that secretaries don't make personal calls and swipe office supplies? Yes, embezzlement is theft, but technically, so is goofing off on "company time". And finally, corporations that are unable to prevent fraud, either through intelligent policy or through inspiration, should fail. In either case, the shareholders are simply incompetent. Incompetent people simply should not benefit from a capitalistic society, especially if they are at its apex. Corporate enforcement by the government is, in many ways, subsidized management. Corporations are meant to be self-interested capitalistic entities; they should not receive subsidies of any kind. Ultimately, the only real purpose Sarbanes-Oxley and other legislation of its kind really serve is that of legally cementing shareholder control. They transform the corporation, normally a free-market entity, into an authoritarian one. Actions that are normally motivated by rational self-interest become instead forced by law. The virtue of capitalism is that it ensures cooperation not through punishment, but through reward. To bring the legal system into the world of corporate governance is to betray this principle.

51afcf2b-2019-04-18T11:44:47Z-00002-000

I agree with all of your points about how the sport is so precise and you can make lots of money by it too! But I do not agree that bowling is a sport! Bowling is rolling a spherical object/bowling ball down a small lane and try to knock over 10 pins. People or myself, could easily do that with a can of green beans and 10 toilet paper rolls, and you don't see me getting a scholarship or getting lots of money! I think bowing is an excuse for someone to knock something over without getting in trouble. These are my reasons for why I think bowling should not be considered a sport. Eat it, TheOpinionatedOstrich

90227f05-2019-04-18T11:32:18Z-00001-000

Though my opponent stated that people in the United States are constantly moving and have no time to cook at home so they rely on fast food, I strongly disagree due to there being various ways to eat healthy such as meal prepping the day before or taking healthy snacks or lunch. Yes, fast food is quick and cheap but your life and health are more important than money. According to MD health, "Extra sugar and food dye is put into fast food to make it more appealing, particularly to younger viewers. Many believe that these addicting ingredients are contributing to the growing obesity epidemic' "Most of the food additives and preservatives have negative effects on the body. One of the harmful ingredients is carcinogenics that can even cause cancer". "Fast food is often filled with ingredients such as soya, salt, cheese or mayonnaise and is often deep fried, which adds a lot of extra calories without adding any additional nutrition. Given the high amount of calories, it will take a significant amount of exercise to burn off the calories you take in. For example, it would take 7 hours of exercise to burn off the calories in a large Coke, fries and a Big Mac from McDonalds. Consuming this high level of calories without burning them off can lead to additional health issues". "In addition to the medical disadvantages of fast food, the production and selling of junk food puts a significant negative impact on the environment. The amount of resources necessary to raise the meat for fast food products creates a shortage of resources around the world. For example, every pound of hamburger we consume takes 2500 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain to produce, say nothing of the land needed to raise the cattle and the grains to feed them. The animals raised to make fast food meat products are often fed antibiotics and a poor diet that causes the animals to be underdeveloped. These antibiotics and growth hormones can be passed on to those who consume the meat afterward, leading to negative health effects. Some have reported growing extra breast tissue or developing damage to the immune system from eating fast food on a regular basis". According to an article published on May 05, 2018 by UCLA, "Food is like a pharmaceutical compound that affects the brain," said Fernando G"mez-Pinilla, a UCLA professor of neurosurgery and physiological science who has spent years studying the effects of food, exercise and sleep on the brain. "Diet, exercise and sleep have the potential to alter our brain health and mental function. This raises the exciting possibility that changes in diet are a viable strategy for enhancing cognitive abilities, protecting the brain from damage and counteracting the effects of aging. "Excess calories can reduce the flexibility of synapses and increase the vulnerability of cells to damage by causing the formation of free radicals. Moderate caloric restriction could protect the brain by reducing oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, G"mez-Pinilla said". According to MSN, In 2013, the Dr Oz Show in the US claimed that soda fountains are the dirtiest places in fast food joints. This was backed up by Dr Sean O"Keefe who agreed that bacteria, germs and mold grow in environments rich in sugar, ice and air. This makes hard-to-clean soda fountains veritable breeding grounds for food poisoning. According to Eat This ,Not That "The high calories in fast food are accompanied by low nutritional content. Too much of that, and your body will begin to lack the necessary nutrients it needs to function properly. "Your body is temporarily full with empty foods that don"t provide nourishment, so even though you may have eaten a lot of calories, you won"t be satisfied for long," says Amy Shapiro, MS, RD, CDN, founder of Real Nutrition NYC. According to an article published by Physcology Today, "We hold this truth to be self-evident: that Americans are seeing their waistlines expanding more than ever, with no known end to our increasing girth. The stereotype of the fat American has been reduced to a punch line the world over, disguising the dire statistics that this country leads regarding obesity and threat to national healthcare and overall quality of life. We are the fattest industrialized nation across the world, with 2/3 of Americans qualifying as overweight or obese. The obesity epidemic has spread to our nation"s youth, with 1 out of 3 children born in 2000 or after projected to develop type-2 diabetes across his or her lifetime". With this being said, People in the United States should be more aware of what fast food does to their body and their health. My opponent stated that society and their younger generations rely on fast food and that people should realize that others with busy schedules need to eat even if its NOT "HOME-MADE' but my opponent forgot to mention that its "NOT HEALTHY". YES, people with busy schedules need to eat due to it being a necessity of life but there are other options than Fast Food. Fast food has many disadvantages that causes major life threatening issues and with this being said FAST FOOD SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE U.S! http://www.md-health.com... http://newsroom.ucla.edu... https://www.eatthis.com... http://www.healthdata.org...- problem-among https://www.psychologytoday.com...

bbe2f561-2019-04-18T19:26:06Z-00005-000

The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table: [Word - Prostitution] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money [Word - Should] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [Word - Legalized] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to ==================== Prostitution is not "wrong" or "immoral" ==================== I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time. Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us!

59434708-2019-04-18T18:14:01Z-00005-000

Palestine's land was taken with questionable legality, and so they have Palestine has a right to be a sovereign nation, as it once was. The fact that it is not is a travesty, as it is only the fear of Israel's nuclear power that prevents the international community from accepting Palestine's sovereignty. The Gaza strip conflict would be completely halted by a declaration of the creation of Palestine as a nation, as the inhabitants of the strip are only looking to regain rights lost sixty years ago. The Palestinian people have been forced away from their land by a mistaken UN resolution, and without support they cannot take it back nonviolently.

588c0ec1-2019-04-18T12:36:11Z-00000-000

While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. DiscussionOf note is the large proportion of abstracts that state noposition on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ-ations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussionson questions that are still disputed or unanswered ratherthan on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6]-stupidapeHowever, not about everyone does agree with this. Several problems were found with each of the studies that declared 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change occurs. For example, one such study was found to have only included 5% of respondents as climate scientists[11]. Then the very same study we are looking at above, used only the evidence that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change(for or against) and declared that 97% of climate scientists agree on it, when actually, that's only 97% of climate scientists who take a position, and doesn't take into account that some may believe it is inconclusive. It was found, in fact, that about 15% of climate scientists, when asked to rank 1-7 where 1 is not convinced at all, and 7 is very much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, ranked from 1-4. Which is a significant amount of scientists who doubt it or are unsure(where 4 would be unsure).[12] Just because majority of climate scientists agree, doesn't mean we can just immediately dismiss the evidence and opinions that suggest climate change is not real."False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " -stupidapeWell, as shown above, it's actually 85% who believe somewhat or more in anthropogenic climate change, and only 34.59% are absolutely sure[12] which means, technically, a majority have some doubts lingering in their minds otherwise they would have ranked it as 7. .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12]-StupidapeThere are a number of problems with global climate models(GCM's) though, which is what this claim that the earth is warming is based off of. There is the general coldness problem, which indicates that the real temperature is actually colder than what the GCM's indicate. [13] Since we don't have a completely reliable way of measuring the global temperature, it can't be concluded that there even is warming. "Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]"-StupidapeHowever, it's been proven that the Earth's position in orbit and rotational axis is changing, to the point where it's getting slightly closer to the sun. This also would result in warming, which is not mentioned at all in the tenth article you linked, so it hasn't been accounted for. [13] "Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change."-stupidapeThere are likely more studies than just those 90, I doubt skeptical science put up every single study that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Also, just because there is a smaller amount of studies, doesn't mean they can somehow be dismissed as easily as you have. You need to analyze them and compare them to the studies claiming anthropogenic climate change is real. Then you determine which ones have the more valid claims. Since you have not done this, most likely, it is too soon to claim anthropogenic climate change is real, thus there is room for doubt. "As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models."-stupidapeThis doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model?Sources:[11] http://www.nationalreview.com...;[12] file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_pe.pdf[13] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

da39a345-2019-04-18T14:02:02Z-00002-000

Raising the minimum wage would be good for America. First it would raise the income of around 28 million people. You can't call them lazy because they have jobs. Most of them would go to college but can't afford it and if the minimum wage is increased they might be able to afford to go to college. Tell me a few reasons why Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would be a good president.

a3771765-2019-04-18T11:21:52Z-00003-000

There was a ban on assault weapons from 1994-2004 and during that time were linked to less injuries by mass shootings. Background checks, Concealed carry laws, Called "nibbles around the edges, " do not curb mass shootings as a whole. They are ineffective and pointless. When the ban was in effect for 10 years, The number of school shooting victims was 54% less than when the ban was not in effect. So, How would a ban not help curb mass shootings that leave people scared to leave their house, Or go to school?

5465d130-2019-04-18T11:11:45Z-00005-000

If you are pro choice then you cannot possibly be vegetarian. Why would you ever believe in the sanctity of animal life but not human life?

d5f1a77c-2019-04-18T16:25:07Z-00003-000

Homework is just a waste. It uses paper which hurts the environment. Homework takes time away from doing every day things instead of doing homework over the weekend which is meant to give you a break not make you break.

d5f1a77c-2019-04-18T16:25:07Z-00005-000

homework is just a waste of time. we learn everything in school, so why should we do it at home. home is for family time and whenever we have homework it takes time away for you to spend with your families.

c1132701-2019-04-18T15:43:06Z-00000-000

Pro has only claimed that hockey is better than soccer, but has no evidence to show for it. He has neglected his BoP entirely, and even went further to claim that this debate was supposed to be opinionated. If he wanted to make something opinionated, he should have done so in the Opinions section of DDO. I have negated all parts of Pro's argument, and he has failed to prove that hockey is the best sport.

c1132701-2019-04-18T15:43:06Z-00002-000

Thanks to Pro for his...rather short...argument. I will point out that Pro has not addressed his BoP, so everything he has claimed is invalid. That being said, this argument will hardly need much content to win. What Exactly is the "Best Sport?" Here is the definition of best: Best: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing[1] Here is the definition of sport: Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.[2] From these definitions, it can be concluded that the "best sport" is the one that requires more skill and physical prowess than the others. However, it is virtually impossible to compare different sports due to their diverse gameplay, equipment, and setting for playing. Therefore, there is no "best sport," and people who do claim that it is are prejudiced since they don't have evidence that their sport (or hockey in this case) has the highest requirement of skill or physical prowess. Pro has failed to provide evidence for this, and his entire argument is heavily opinionated. In addition, he failed to accept full BoP. The outcome of this debate favors Con. Sources [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

c1132701-2019-04-18T15:43:06Z-00004-000

I accept this argument. As an ice hockey player myself, I think so as well, but it's all a matter of opinion. Pro must accept the BoP and must logically prove and provide evidence that hockey is indeed the best sport.

53650067-2019-04-18T18:09:31Z-00001-000

Harvard may be number one but have you actually looked at who goes majority of students are white which doesn't represent true diversity do you know why because of the wealth disparity that have been caused by years of oppresions that the government placed on minorities. Jim Crow Laws. With private univeristies raising cost each and every year the common man can no longer afford college. There are now even arguments that since you cannot afford college that you shouldn't even bother to go.

6b79d6dc-2019-04-18T16:35:35Z-00004-000

No, because another handle would create a large surface area and would thus use more plastic and consequently do more harm to the environment. [1] The benefits are negligible as someone could balance the bottle on their other hand while holding it steady with the handle if required. [1] - http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org...

3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00002-000

Throughout this entire debate, Pro has continuously given evidence on how it is completely possible for a vegan diet to be healthy. This is true, however, it's just not easy, and I think we can both agree on that. Worldwide veganism would bring just as many cons as it would pros. Pro had already stated many of the pros: "Pro has already given several reasons why there is good reason to eat vegan. To reiterate, animal happiness, environment, health, and to mitigate world hunger. Pro contends it would be unfair to hungry people for wealthy people to continue to eat meat, dairy, and eggs. Animals happiness matters, and it would be unjust to continue to exploit animals by producing meat, eggs, and dairy" But let's take a look at the cons: A radical change: Going vegan is a huge change and can sometimes be even more complicated if you are not allowed to eat certain ingredients such as soy. "Complete plant proteins are found in soy products, so if you're trying to moderate your intake of soy, you have to learn how to put together complementary foods to form complete vegetarian proteins," says Jackie Keller. Potential interference with existing medical conditions: If you have a condition such as osteoporosis or diabetes, it is critical to consult with your physician and a registered dietitian when starting and implementing a vegan eating plan, as a vegan diet may interfere with your condition. Difficulty when dining out: Not many restaurants offer true vegan choices and this can make dining out difficult. Mehta advises carrying vegan foods and snacks to make eating out easier when traveling long distances. Loss of essential vitamins and minerals: There is evidence to show vegan diets do not contain vitamin B12, an essential nutrient. "Vegans can get vitamin B12 from fortified foods (some brands of soy milk, fake meats, breakfast cereals and nutritional yeast) and from supplements. Vegan diets may be low in calcium and vitamin D although there are vegan sources of these nutrients," says Reed Mangels, PhD, RD, nutrition advisor for The Vegetarian Resource Group (vrg.org). Unrealistic expectations: "A person might believe that by being vegan they are making themselves healthier. There are no good data of which I am aware proving that simply being vegan as an isolated behavior improves health," says Anne Applebaum. There has to be a balance of diet, exercise and a proper fitness regime. http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... http://chickpeamagazine.com... So, what is my point, you may ask? Well, I am certain a chicken would put another chicken's life before a human's. While you are thinking about the animals, we have to think about the humans as well...

3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00003-000

First Con has dropped many subjects like the China study. Giving Pro the advantage in those areas. "Vitamin B12 is critical for the health of the brain and nervous system and is primarily found in animal foods. A deficiency can cause all sorts of adverse effects on brain function. [1]" Con True. Yet, Pro has already proven its possible with some care to get sufficient b12 on a vegan diet. "Creatine is an important nutrient in muscle and brain that helps to supply energy. Studies show that vegetarians have a deficiency in creatine that leads to adverse effects on muscle and brain function. [2]" Con Looking at Con's source, wikipedia there is no mention of vegetarians having creatine deficiencies. Instead that creatine is significantly lower in vegetarians. Also, the sample size was only 18 and 24, which is small. Pro contends that creatine deficiency is of no concern to vegans. "A study involving 18 vegetarians and 24 non-vegetarians on the effect of creatine in vegetarians showed that total creatine was significantly lower than in non-vegetarians." [25]. "A large part of the world is deficient in Vitamin D3, which is only found in animal foods. A deficiency in this critical nutrient is associated with depression and various diseases. [3]" Con Pro cannot find the statement in the provided link by Con stating that a large part of the world is deficient in D3. Instead Con links to WebMD, which doesn't state what Con claims WebMD does. Could Con please link to where Con got the quote? Pro contends its unfair for Con to quote a source and then fail to link to the source. This is because Pro cannot tell the context of the quote in its original source. Pro has searched the internet and found what appears to be the source Con has quoted. [26]. This is either sloppy or dishonest on Con's part to give credit to WebMD when authoritynutrition.com was the source of this quote. From the authoritynutrition site all it states is that vitamin D from animal foods is more effective. Then, the author, Kris Gunnars, lists all the consequences of vitamin D deficiency. Gunnars fails to make the connection between eating vegan and vitamin D deficiency. Pro contends that adequate vitamin D can be easily achieved on a vegan diet. "Carnosine is found strictly in animal tissues. This nutrient can reduce damage caused by elevated blood glucose and may have strong anti-aging effects. [4]" Con Claim: Carnosine is of little consequence. Warrant: "Carnosine deficiencies are extremely rare" [27]. Impact: Carnosine is of little to no impact. Also vegans can always see a doctor to make sure they are getting enough nutrients. Supplements are an option. "The Omega-3 fatty acid DHA is critical for proper function of the brain. It is primarily found in animal foods like fatty fish. Studies show that vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in it. [5]" Con DHA omega-3s can be found in sea weed and micro-algae. ALA omega-3 can be obtained from flaxseeds. "Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid found in cold-water, fatty fish, such as salmon. It is also found in fish oil supplements, along with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed." [28]. "Omega-3 fatty acids for nutrition and medicine: considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA." [29]. Vegans can receive all omega-3s from vegan sources. "My above arguments and sources are in favour of my original argument, which is that it has been proven rather difficult to maintain a balanced diet as a vegan." Con Perhaps the best argument Con has made thus far. Yes, a vegan diet is more difficult. Part of the reason for the difficulty is lack of vegans. If there was more plant eaters, the ethical eaters could band together and lend each other support. "Is it possible? Yes. But it's difficult, and much easier to do as a non-vegan. It would be unfair and not right to limit people to only eating vegan foods, and at the end of the day, there is no good reason to do so." Pro has already given several reasons why there is good reason to eat vegan. To reiterate, animal happiness, environment, health, and to mitigate world hunger. Pro contends it would be unfair to hungry people for wealthy people to continue to eat meat, dairy, and eggs. Animals happiness matters, and it would be unjust to continue to exploit animals by producing meat, eggs, and dairy. Pro looks forward to the next round of debate. Vote Pro, there are plenty of good reasons to ban meat, eggs, and dairy worldwide. Links 25. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 26. http://authoritynutrition.com... 27. http://www.livestrong.com... 28. http://umm.edu... 29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00004-000

Vitamin B12 is critical for the health of the brain and nervous system and is primarily found in animal foods. A deficiency can cause all sorts of adverse effects on brain function. [1] Creatine is an important nutrient in muscle and brain that helps to supply energy. Studies show that vegetarians have a deficiency in creatine that leads to adverse effects on muscle and brain function. [2] A large part of the world is deficient in Vitamin D3, which is only found in animal foods. A deficiency in this critical nutrient is associated with depression and various diseases. [3] Carnosine is found strictly in animal tissues. This nutrient can reduce damage caused by elevated blood glucose and may have strong anti-aging effects. [4] The Omega-3 fatty acid DHA is critical for proper function of the brain. It is primarily found in animal foods like fatty fish. Studies show that vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in it. [5] 1. http://www.m.webmd.com... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.m.webmd.com... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.m.webmd.com... My above arguments and sources are in favour of my original argument, which is that it has been proven rather difficult to maintain a balanced diet as a vegan. Is it possible? Yes. But it's difficult, and much easier to do as a non-vegan. It would be unfair and not right to limit people to only eating vegan foods, and at the end of the day, there is no good reason to do so.

3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00005-000

Intro Con has dropped many of Pro's statements. Instead mentioning new possible nutritional deficiencies and calls propaganda "Despite all the propaganda, there isn't any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature." Con Con, also fails to refute Pro's evidence of vegan celebrities and millions of vegans living in the world. Clearly, nutritional decencies concerns over a vegan diet are unwarranted. Now to refute Con line by line. "Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine." Con Pro has heard of B12 deficiency, yet Creatine is new. Claim 1: B12 is obtained from bacteria. Warrant 1: "Even though most lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are auxotrophic for several vitamins, it is now known that certain strains have the capability to synthesize water-soluble vitamins such as those included in the B-group (folates, riboflavin and vitamin B(12) amongst others). " [10]. Impact 1: Since bacteria is synthesized from bacteria and not animals, this weakens Cons claim. Claim 2: B12 can be gained from supplements. Warrant 2: "Vitamin B12 supplements" [11]. Impact 2: It is possible to be vegan and meet your b-12 requirement. Just because there are naive vegans who think b-12 isn't important, doesn't mean all vegans are b-12 deficient or ignorant. Onto Creatine. Claim 3: Creatine supplements exist. Warrant: "vegetarians creatine supplements" [12]. Impact: Vegans can use these supplements to avoid deficiency. Claim 4: The human body can synthesize Creatine Warrant: " It is not an essential amino acid, as we can synthesize is from other amino acids found also in plant foods" [12], Impact: This weakens Con claim about vegans and Creatine deficiency. "Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts." Con Considering that many vegans are female, this is good. For males, its possible to have excess testosterone, usually seen in athletes who take steroids. Claim 5: Excess testosterone is detrimental to health for men. Warrant: "Examples of drawbacks or disadvantages of men having higher than average testosterone levels include: Men tend to consume more alcoholic beverages. Men are more likely to smoke. Men are more likely to get injured. According to some researchers, the higher the testosterone level, the more likely men are to participate in risk-taking behavior (sexual, injury risk, and even criminal activity). " [13]. Impact: Lowering testosterone in men via vegan diet is good instead of bad. Claim: Excess testosterone is adverse to good health in women. Warrant: "Other possible effects include acne, an enlarged clitoris, increased muscle mass, and deepening of voice. High levels of testosterone can also lead to infertility" [14]. Impact: Lowering testosterone levels in women with a vegan diet is good for health. "Despite all the propaganda, there isn"t any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature." Con Con uses a provocative term propaganda. Anecdotal evidence is evidence nevertheless and can be found all over the net. [15]. As for scienfic evidence there is plenty. "Those who ate a vegetarian diet had a 22% lower risk of colorectal cancer than those who weren"t vegetarians." [16]. "Cytotoxic activity, which is expressed as lytic units, was significantly higher in vegetarians than in their omnivorous controls by a factor of 2. " [17]. Most of the studies are observational in nature? Con stated there was no evidence and then contradicts himself or herself with this statement. Con knows about the observational scienfic evidence yet states there is no evidence. Most diet studies tend to be observational in nature. Since studies on vegan diets are a subset of the set diet studies, it only makes sense that most vegan diet studies are observational in nature. For scienfic evidence, a person only has to look at the fiber, antioxidants, phytonutrients, vitamins, and minerals in plant foods to realize they are healthy. Also it is common knowledge that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Next, meat has no fiber, lacks antioxidants for the most the part, and no phytonutrients. Finally, meat contains too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein which Pro has explained in the previous round. "Vegan proponents often use fear mongering and scare tactics in order to convince people not to eat animal foods." Con Con continues to use proactive language, fear mongering and scare tactics. At the same time Con uses the same tactics to convince people that they will have a nutrient deficiency of protein, b-12, and Creatine. That's hypocritical of Con. Pro has proven that through diet and supplements a vegan can meet his or her nutritional needs. "The China Study as evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked." Con What's debunked really mean? Definition of debunked "To cause to be no longer believed or valued:" [18]. By this definition Con is correct. Yet, by this definition it doesn't mean the China study is false. Pro contends that the China Study has been a victim of a smear campaign and thus debunked, yet the China study is true. Most people think of Denise Minger's criticism. Minger's criticism has been thoroughly criticized. Just for starters she is suspiciously young to understand advanced epidemiological studies. Minger confirms this suspicion by making mistakes. Here is several criticisms of Minger's work. [19][20]. If Con has a specific debunk of the China study Con must link to the criticism rather than the bare assertion, the China Study has been debunked, implying the China Study is false, when in reality it is true. "Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods." Con Paleo also known as low carb diets make the same claims. Not all vegan diets recommend shun the listed foods. All that is left is Con's link. Note Con used no quotes. Pro will now refute the article in Con's link. "Perhaps the most striking commonality is an unerring reverence for animal foods. No traditional culture subsisted on a vegan diet, a fact that Dr. Price found particularly interesting." [21]. The status quo is not self justifying. These cultures most likely evolved around eating some meat, because eating meat is better than starvation. "T. Campbell, the author, notoriously cherry-picked data to arrive at a specific conclusion." [21]. Bare assertion. The author of link [21] never specifies why this data is cherry picked. "Denise Minger, author of Death by Food Pyramid, published a scathing critique of Cambell"s work in her article, The China Study: Fact or Fiction." [21]. Minger's so called debunk has been criticized heavily. See links [20] and [21]. "2. Vegan diets do not provide fat-soluble vitamins A and D" [21]. Vitamin D can be gained from sunlight. [22]. As for vitamin A this is just bizarre. There doesn't seem to be any case of vitamin A deficiency in vegans. "3. Vegan diets often rely heavily on soy" [21]. There are many alternatives to soy. Just because they are vegans who perform reckless actions, doesn't mean all vegans are this way. "5. Ethical omnivorism supports a healthy planet" [21] See slaughtering the amazon to see just how ethical these omnivore diets are. Free-range cattle take lots of acreage. [23]. "Many people choose veganism because they think it cruel to take a life, but something dies no matter what you eat. For example, field mice were demolished in order to grow the corn for a box of vegan cereal." [21]. This is true, but less animals die on a vegan diet. [24]. From the chart a person can see that eating chicken causes the most amount of animal deaths, 251.1 per million calories and grains cause the least 1.65 per million calories. Pro is out of characters to fully refute Con's sole link. Thanks for the debate. Summary Links. 10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11. http://www.mayoclinic.org... 12. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 13. http://www.medicinenet.com... 14. http://www.webmd.com... 15. http://www.30bananasaday.com... 16. http://www.health.harvard.edu... 17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 18. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 19. http://www.vegsource.com... 20. http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com... 21. http://empoweredsustenance.com... 22. http://health.usnews.com... 23. http://www.greenpeace.org... 24. http://www.animalvisuals.org...

3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00007-000

"Meat- Banning meat will result in the fact that people will end up not getting enough proteins, and because of this, our cells wouldn't be able to repair themselves, and we wouldn't be able to grow" Con There is logic to this statement. If protein deficient then adverse health affects will result. Yet, Con fails to prove how much proteins humans need. Next, Con assumes that a vegan diet will result in protein deficiency. Pro will now prove how much protein humans need and prove that a vegan diet could have enough protein. Claim 1: Humans need about 10% calories from protein. Warrant 1:" If we do a few calculations we see that the protein recommendation for vegans amounts to close to 10% of calories coming from protein." [2]. Impact 1: A vegan diet is capable of supplying enough protein. On a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivore its possible to be protein deficient, just as its possible on the same diets to be nutritionally balanced. Vegans are more likely to be protein deficient but this is only due to ignorance. A few naive vegans should not ruin an entire lifestyle for millions of people. Claim 2: Million of people are vegan. Warrant 2: "About 2% to 3% of the population in the world is vegan. Since there are around 6.7 billion people in the world, this means there are approximately 168 million vegans." [3]. "In 2009, the world population was 6.787 billion, meaning there were approximately 407,200,000 vegans in the world." [4]. Impact 2: If nutritional deficiency was such a problem, there wouldn't be millions of vegans in the world. Claim 3: There are many vegan celebrities. Warrant 3: [5] and "Al Gore goes vegan, with little fanfare" [6]. Impact 3: Celebrities by their very nature must be good looking and healthy. If nutritional deficiency were such a problem these celebrities wouldn't be vegan. Claim 4: At least one vegan food contains 10% or more calories from protein. Warrant 4: Soy milk contains 24% protein [7]. Impact 4: Further proves vegans can receive enough protein. The negative impact on health of over nutrition of fat, saturated fats, and cholesterol are well known, thus animal products are unhealthy. Not well known is that animal protein increases IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one, production via the liver. Elevated serum IGF-1 levels increase risk for cancer. [8]. Therefore, consuming animal proteins increases risk for cancer. Claim 5: Animal products take at least twice as much grain per pound as opposed to straight grain. Warrant 5: "Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves." [9]. Impact 5: Meat is less efficient thus causing excess environmental damage and world hunger. Vegan diets can help mitigate both world hunger and environmental harm. Summary In summary Pro has forcefully disproved Con's notion. In the same round Pro has shown the benefits of a vegan diet while condemning the consumption of animal products with proof. Vote Pro. Links 2. http://www.vrg.org... 3. http://www.answers.com... 4. http://www.numberof.net... 5. http://abcnews.go.com... 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 7. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 8. http://nutritionfacts.org... 9. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

3471cae0-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00009-000

Pro tries to maximize the happiness of everyone under the philosophy of utilitarianism. Everyone includes all humans and all sentient animals. Pro contends that banning meat, eggs, and dairy foods would make both humans and animals happier. http://psychology.wikia.com...

358a72ad-2019-04-18T11:12:06Z-00002-000

The Con has failed to address the most pressing arguments originally made including: Palestinian antisemitism Palestinian aggression against Israel as a state, As well as terrorist groups supported by Palestinian government US economic support of Israel is of mutual benefit Israeli agenda and morality aligns with US morality/public opinion I would also argue that by supporting Con's statement that ". . . One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. And who is Pro, To decide which is which? " that Con is supporting Palestinian agenda to exterminate all Jews. There can be many facets to wars, But to pretend that both sides of this conflict are equal is to disregard practical morality as a whole. Furthermore, It isn't just me claiming Israel is a legitimate state with supportable morals/political agenda. (Con-"Israel was recognized only by those with a vested interest") Literally, The whole world (all the democratic and countries with the highest protection of human rights, Contrasted by Middle Eastern nations) is in support of Israel (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/File:CountriesRecognizingIsrael2018. Svg). Link goes to map. The issue isn't money, It's morality. The Jewish people need their ancestral homeland protected by the international community, And especially by the US. Con has a total disregard of evidence and has made weak claims made with strawman fallacies ("And the worship of the Billion Dollar God exceeds all rationality. "-- That's not a good argument, And its not clear what your point it. Capitalism is bad? US foreign policy is bad? What's up with that jumble of words? ) Next time source your arguments.

8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00001-000

As you have listed your arguments for the second round, so will I; rebuttals will begin in the third round. Essentially, in the third round, I rebuttal your arguments in round two, and you do the same as well. If you agree to these simple rules, then I will be respectful of your future arguments. Vegetarianism is not a positive life-style, rather it a negative one that not only has negative effects towards the self, but also towards others. Because you were so kind to list out your arguments, then so will I as well in the following below: 1)Discourages consumption of other food groups 2)Results in malnutrition for neglect of other food groups 3)Vegetarians are still contributing to meat consumption 4)Loss of business for food companies of other food groups Argument #1: By becoming a vegetarian, one would only eat foods that are considered non-meat and will avoid eating foods of other food groups as a result. Fruits, vegetables, and grains would still be eaten, but dairy, meat, and alternative food groups would not. By not eating these other food groups, it will cause bad habits in the vegetarian which will eventually result in them becoming "picky-eaters". Not only does being picky have negative health effects, but it also makes one become discriminated against when eating with others and/or in public. Though people will not directly discriminate you for being picky, they will do it behind your back to the point they do not realize they are showing it to you directly, and when you notice, let us just say that it would bring down your self-esteem. And when your self-esteem is lowered due to the discrimination of being a vegetarian, even more negative health effects will arise, as well as negative effects towards your brain emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Argument #2: Getting into my next point, one of the negative effects of being a picky eater is malnutrition, or simply lacking the sufficient amount of nutrients needed by your body to survive, grow, and develop. Many that live in less fortunate countries within Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific are diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of being forced to become a vegetarian because of the lack of meat, dairy, alternatives, etc. Even those that live in developed countries suffer of being malnutrition if they avoid certain food groups as that in itself will result in negative health effects, such as anorexia, obesity, diabetes, and so on. If the vegetarian is a child, teenager, or a senior, it will only increase the risk of getting the negative effects that come along with being malnutrition, as children and adolescents depend heavily on getting nutrients from different food groups in order to properly grow and develop. Argument #3: An ethical question that arises from being a vegetarian is whether or not vegetarians are true plant eaters as they claim to be. But in fact, they are not; they will still continue to eat meat so long as it is not categorized as meat and/or separated as its own food group or section in a super-market. Because such vegetarians are not true herbivores and are still omnivores, they still contribute to the eating of meat. Some foods that are scientifically proven to be meat but rejected by vegetarians include: seafood, fish, eggs, and insects. Since many of the foods they eat are still considered meat, vegetarians contradict themselves and are extremely hypocritical when stating they do not eat meat, when in reality, some of the foods they eat is considered meat. Not only are vegetarians hypocritical and continue to eat meat, they do not go by the definition of a vegetarian - only herbivores are true vegetarians that eat fruits, vegetables, and plants, never eating any meat (whether or not it is considered meat by vegetarians) as it will negatively harm their body and overall health. Argument #4:Finally, being a vegetarian will cause food companies that raise and sell meat for a living to run out of business. If, hypothetically, nobody in the world would eat meat, then the "meat" industry would simply crash. What happens if it crashes? No supermarkets and grocery stores would be willing to sell meat ever again. Those companies would become bankrupt and forced to lay countless workers off. Those workers would no longer have jobs and would suffer financially as their experience cannot land them better jobs than they had. The economy would also be hugely affected as food is one of the most important industries that determines how well an economy is doing. A bad economy would simply cause economic "epidemics", and soon everybody would be affected financially. It would also make the country itself weaker, with a weaker government, military, health-care, and so on. Inflation costs would rise, the currency would drop, social services would decline, unemployment would decrease; you get the idea. Being a vegetarian will eventually quicken this negative tragedy from occurring if many were to convert to vegetarianism. Again, being a vegetarian is not a good life-style as it causes so much negative effects. Please argue my rebuttal in the next round and I will do the same.

1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00001-000

It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they might vote for celebrities or make their decision on which party had the best image. They might put extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!).

1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00003-000

15 year old's are not mature enough. The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 they have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion.

2476225d-2019-04-18T14:28:24Z-00002-000

some good points, I have really enjoyed this back and forth.Pro says:It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree. Afew things wrong with this are, not everyone gets into universcity, its expensive and you can be dennied your aplication. The idea that their will be more jobs with a degree is not true anymore, their are many people with degrees working in wallmarts and other awful jobs, 45% of college students can't even find a job in their first year after college anymore. Not everyone should go to universcity, the only people who should go are the above average inteligence and people who wish to study a particular field, the idea that getting a degree will instantly get you a job is foolish and lazy unimaginative thinking. Also as technology gets better their will be less and less jobs, their is a machine that has been built that prefores the most dangerous and complex surgeries, when its cheaper than a sergion and they loose their jobs what for them? It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree.Yes i would have to agree with the fact that outsaucing has been going on for years but it happens alot more now than it did in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, proof of that is china has the largest economy because it has alot of all the american jobs. So for example say you had 10 jobs and their were 10 people doing these jobs, one job each. and three jobs go to china to make cars. then one of the three who lost his job gets a job selling those cars, you still have two people without jobs. No amount of eduacation will create more jobs and not everyone has it in them to be an "entrepreneur", this is expecting to much and to little at the same time.This is my favourate Con argues that these people who have stolen and committed illegal crimes are okay. They should suffer no consequences, and the actions they commuted are okay. He merely states that these people have a reason (which is okay) to commit these illegal crimes. To this i put that this is a moral question. I would not say that trading food stamps for real money and vice versa is a crime, it is an act of desperation. Foodstamps can not perchase any of the following: Toilet paper, Laundry, Toothpaste, Soap, Diapers (or as we call them nappies on this side of the pond), Tampons and Pads, Deodrent, Hair Care Products, Cleaning products and Lotions for Skin Iritations. How can you be expected to find work atall without these essentials, myabe bending the occasion rule that doesn't harm anyone isn't such a bad thing after all? If you were on food stamps could you live without these things? What if you were disabled and had no chance of ever having a job? The world would be alot more dangerous if all the blind people had to hunt for their food wouldnt it, because they would, no human is ever going to die without a fight its against all instinct.

fe4bca00-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00004-000

Thank you, lets begin, I assume you mean to legalize the recreational use of Marijuana. 1. The war on Drugs can be won. 2. Recreational Cannabis is a substance that is harmful. 3. The Government's duty is to better society and protect the population. 1. The United States of America's policy has been working within the United States and the war on Drugs has worked in the past else where and ought to be stregnthened not weakened. "The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure. " http://www.cnbc.com... While it is true that we live in a culture that is tied with Marijauna and is to a large extent pro-marijauna I ask you to examine how China solved an equally wide spread problem with Opium. Opium was so widely used that is was causually smoked in Shanghai resturants and would be offered to guests as we today would offer a drink. Opium however was defeated. It was defeated by Mao Tse-Dong's government policies. The punishment was Opium was death, smugglers faced death and enforcement was absolute. This resulted in an end to Chinese Opium culture and nearly all Opium use. http://revcom.us... If we applied similiar policies here we could liberate our country from Marijuana use just as Chairman Mao had done to China! 2.Also it is universally known the effects of Recreational Marijuana are negative to society. It's purpose is indeed purely recreational, It is no secret that Marijuana use makes one lazy, irattional and habitual use in some can lead to decreased achievement in school and work and to some we know it is certianly a gateway. It is equally negative in the same matter as Alchohol which is universally accepted to lead to a lower quality of life in users that consume too greatly. I would not dare to debate the obvious health benifits but the detremental social effects are equally as prevalent. 3. Since government has the power to assist in liberating people from the detrimental social affects of marijuana and the purpose of the government is to protect the populace and improve society then it is absolutly logical that we ought to keep Marijuana illegal and further fund programs of irradiation and punishment to keep our generations and all future generations safe from such elements.

429c7ee5-2019-04-18T16:36:21Z-00003-000

I don't think any of your points have validity and from what I see you are supporting my arguments. you should not have accepted this debate if your contributions would be completely opinion based and confusion between your "for and against" status in this debate

1094bf3d-2019-04-18T18:54:58Z-00003-000

I agree that there is a combination at play but I believe that nurture plays a greater role. A child only learns from what he/she experiences. A child would not understand manners if a parent doesn't suggest and teach them as a child develops. The examples we observe help us distinguish right from wrong. This is the basis in which we create our own set values and discover who we are as an individual.

4cab66dc-2019-04-18T19:21:26Z-00000-000

"It naturally follows that unless otherwise stated, this training is restricted to the upper body, because that's the part of the body that steroids affect. " Ah, but who has the burden of proof? You. Also, you said that the core-abs is the "key muscle group," which implies that there are other groups that make a difference in baseball. All statements you made assuming that any effect made to the upper body does nothing are irrelevant because you never really proved them to be irrelevant. "Just because it's statistically significant, does not mean it's important enough to make the statistics UNABLE to reflect a player's true natural ability. " We're talking about comparisons. If two guys would have had the exact same batting average, but one guy's batting average went down because he weighed more, and therefore couldn't reach first base as quickly, I win. "I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. " However, your factual phrases do not eliminate steroids as a factor. They only show that it could have been a combination. The guy you cited though so. Why can't you? You have BoP, after all. "If one article says that 2 2=4, and then ALSO says that all non-Caucasian people should be murdered, does that mean I can't cite the factual 2 2=4 part without agreeing with the later opinionated part that non-Caucasian people should be murdered. " It would obviously mean that the narrator is unreliable, and you should get a more reliable source to confirm that 2+2=4. There are plenty out there. "It says in the ESPN source, [3] in the R2 argument. "Of the last dozen seasons. " The article was written in 2005. So, about 1993-2005. That's exactly my time frame. " Your factors don't exclude steroids. They could have all worked together. "Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. .. " "Other factors" does not mean "only factors. " "This is a completely irrelevant argument. .. " Where have you shown that steroids have no effect? You assume that they have no effect, and you have the Burden of Proof, and the BoP alone loses you this debate. "You haven't come close to winning that first contention. You'd have to show that steroids have an effect, and that the effect resulted in a few extra home runs. " Extra home runs? Because guys who use steroids weigh more, they would be slower. Therefore, they would score fewer singles, and perhaps more home-runs. However, the fewer singles would be a significant change in statistics. Even the negative effects mess things up. "You still haven't provided any evidence that it would lead to an increase in home runs. Your whole argument here lacks any basis in fact. " You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. Let's go with the BoP. Which is on you. "Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. .. " In that case, they'd throw change-ups. Why fastballs instead? Because they're fast. It's physics. "Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. " In that case, pitchers would have more strikes. Steroids don't have any effect on a player's reaction time, so the playing field wouldn't be even. It would be lopsided, and all of the statistics would change up or down in some way. "First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. .. " See my evidence locker for why this is incorrect. . http://www.debate.org... "You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. " Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A fast ball bounces off of the bat with more power. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. " Yes, they do. Playing by the rules is considered to be natural ability at using the rules to one's advantage. Breaking the rules is not. "Sorry, but you've just misunderstood your source. The source OUTRIGHT SAYS that a 'statistically significant' difference IS NOT the same as a 'significant' difference. " Yes. It says that any difference is statistically significant so long as it is consistent. That goes my direction, not yours. "You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. " If a guy is weighed down by his steroid use and is called out at first more often, his number of singles is no longer correct. Although, you've never shown anything about the statistics being legitimate in the first place. "1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. " What makes it an opinion? You never established that. "2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. " Actually, that is basically what statistically significant means. Read it out loud. Statistically significant effects have significant effects on statistics. "3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. " You haven't shown that steroids don't have an effect. "4. You have not shown this. " The rest of his step rebuttals seem to count on the above points being rebutted, so. .. "He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. " I could say the same about you, except with the lack of an effect. "Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. " Your arguments don't even exist. "His arguments regarding the even playing field either reflected a lack of understanding of baseball (specifically, his arguments about the fast pitches being easier to hit for home runs). " Not only does this sentence need another clause, but I never said that fastballs are easy to hit. They just fly further. "His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. " My opponent seems to be looking in a mirror. "His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. " All I've needed is a statistically significant source. I don't need it to be important. I need it to be statistically significant. After all, this is a statistical debate. Nowhere have I said that it was actual significance. You've just assumed that it takes actual significance, which it does not. "I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote PRO. " He's forgetting something again. He thinks that by refuting all of my arguments will win him the debate. He is wrong. He may be able to attack my arguments, sure. But after that, we have nothing. He has not affirmed the resolution. He has only tried to stop it from being negated. As the Instigator and PRO, and having said nothing earlier, he has the Burden of Proof.

4cab66dc-2019-04-18T19:21:26Z-00004-000

Okay, now my opponent wants to talk about statistical legitimacy. However, this actually plays to my advantage. In science, if a variable is accidentally thrown in, and its effect is unknown, it doesn't matter how small or large the effect really is. The experiment's results are invalidated. If a scientist decides to grow some plants under Condition A to observe the effects compared to plants under Condition B, and he realizes that he used tap water for Condition A, but vitamin water for Condition B, what should he do? Invalidate the experiment. If the effect of the vitamin water is unknown, there's no way that he can publish these results. Therefore, because not all is known about steroids, we have to assume them to have an effect until proven scientifically otherwise, and therefore cannot accept steroid-influenced statistics [1]. "Where is this lean muscle mass, and does it help?" Lean muscle is built up all over the body. "How does it help them train longer and harder, as in, training which parts of the body?" If you want to run further, you can run further, tiring later. If you want to do 1,000 sit-ups, you'll do it with less pain, increasing the chances of doing them all before giving up. Sit-ups, of course, have a major effect on the core-abs [2]. "What groups can suddenly be trained better?" All of them. "Weak. Of course, I'm not going to outright say that there is zero effect. Perhaps there is some, but if there is, it is minimal." So, you concede that there might be a minimal effect. However, even a minimal effect is statistically significant [3]. "First of all, there were other factors, specifically, changes in bats and the shift towards the creation of new, hitter-friendly ballparks." One of your own sources says, "While steroids were obviously a factor in the offensive explosion of the last dozen seasons..." So, if this source is reliable, you lose. If this source is unreliable, your contention about bats and stadiums fails, because your other source doesn't say "bat" or "stadium" anywhere. "Second, I barely even understand what you're saying." If the U.S. were increasing its debt by $5 trillion every year, and suddenly, one year, this rate changed to $2 trillion, we'd still be losing money, but there had to have been some factor to slow this down. "In any case, a look at the next, much larger graph on that website shows that there is no change in the power levels." That's because the second graph doesn't show how the slope used to be much steeper, but suddenly evened out. "Uh... what? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand." Well, if not everybody is using steroids, then we obviously can't call it an even playing field. Let's say that we have two players who are identical, except that one used steroids and the other didn't. Ordinarily, they both would have the exact same statistics. However, the steroid user ended up with a few more home runs every season because of his steroid usage. Obviously, these statistics cannot be compared with each other. "The baseball is going faster? Bonds is hitting harder? Haven't I addressed those? Isn't that the whole point of the debate? I'm showing that those things didn't happen." Hey, I'm trying to attack all of the steps at once. I have to show that steroids have an effect, and then I have to refute the "even playing field" theory. So, I might as well do both at once. Well, this looks as if you concede that if PEDs do have an effect, then it would lead to an increase in home runs, so an even playing field would not occur in terms of statistics. "Insignificantly so, and barely so, because as I've shown above, steroids don't really help." You concede that steroids might have a minimal effect. Statistically, with an outside factor that cannot be accounted for, and might have an effect on the results, the results are no longer legitimate. Because this outside factor has a minimal effect, this effect is not due to chance, because it is correlated with PED usage, so it would be counted as statistically significant. "Nothing, because those who broke the rules didn't have an effect on the statistics." Oh, but you conceded that there might have been a minimal effect. "You haven't shown that." You conceded the possibility. "Insignificant, even if we assume that steroids help." Very significant, because the resolution prompts comparison among all MLB players, including the honest ones. "You haven't shown that." Then why did you concede it? "Nope." Yup. Again, because it is conceded that there might be a minimal (but still statistically significant) effect on statistics, the statistics cannot be held as legitimate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(statistics) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(exercise) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

4cab66dc-2019-04-18T19:21:26Z-00005-000

How annoying about the sources. They can all be found here: http://www.debate.org... except for [12], which works in round 1. About the definition of legitimate: I can provide a new one, but we can also run with yours. Both of them work fine. Alternate definition: of the normal or regular type or kind. [1] As we discussed earlier, this debate is about statistical legitimacy. A legitimate statistic is one that can still be used for its intended purpose. "The known effects of PEDs [2]:" I don't think this refutes what I said. Where is this lean muscle mass, and does it help? I addressed what kinds of muscle help and what kinds don't. How does it help them train longer and harder, as in, training which parts of the body? Are these parts important in baseball? Keep in mind, folks, that general athletic ability is far different from baseball ability. "This can be explained. The people who couldn't make it to the major league decided that they would cheat to get in. The boost wasn't large enough to get them to the very top, but they made it." Of course, this still assumes that PEDs even help. "Muscle mass and strength sound good, but the training is the major part for baseball. Training is basically a wild card, because it can be applied to any muscle group, including the core-abs, the oh-so-important muscle group for baseball." Right, I addressed this. What groups can suddenly be trained better? "How many pitchers use steroids?" I fail to see how this was even very relevant, but actually, many do. Take a look at the Mitchell Report. There are many pitchers there. It's a very common misconception that steroids were abused far more often by hitters. I was only providing an additional argument as to why steroids don't help pitchers. "This implies that there is an effect on the lower body." Weak. Of course, I'm not going to outright say that there is zero effect. Perhaps there is some, but if there is, it is minimal. "1. Notice how the power factor was going down rather steeply until the 'Steroid Era.' The slackening of this decrease could very easily be attributed to PEDs, as they seem to be the only factor left in the graph." First of all, there were other factors, specifically, changes in bats and the shift towards the creation of new, hitter-friendly ballparks. [2] [3] Second, I barely even understand what you're saying. Power still declined. How can steroids help if power still declined? In any case, a look at the next, much larger graph on that website shows that there is no change in the power levels. "PEDs?" This isn't even in the time frame. "And what about the players who actually play by the rules and don't use PEDs? What do you propose?" Uh... what? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "For one thing, the pitchers gain less from steroids." Evidence? Don't try using my argument about the external rotation of the upper arm. That was only an additional reason why arm mass wouldn't help a pitcher. It doesn't help your argument, which concerns magnitude of help. "For another, if the baseball is going faster, and Barry Bonds is hitting harder, this would lead to an increase in home runs, because quick fast balls are the optimal pitch for a home run. That's why they pitch down-the-line fastballs in the home-run derby. Therefore, steroid use on both sides leads to even more home runs, so it definitely can't be legitimate." The baseball is going faster? Bonds is hitting harder? Haven't I addressed those? Isn't that the whole point of the debate? I'm showing that those things didn't happen. "Finally, what about the 5% of the pitches that weren't backed by steroids? Those would still interfere with the statistics." Insignificantly so, and barely so, because as I've shown above, steroids don't really help. "Again, what is to be done for the players who played by the rules?" Nothing, because those who broke the rules didn't have an effect on the statistics. "So, because PEDs DO have an effect," You haven't shown that. "and the playing field isn't COMPLETELY even," Insignificant, even if we assume that steroids help. "and the statistics ARE influenced," You haven't shown that. "the resolution is NEGATED." Nope. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://just2sportsguys.blogspot.com... [3]http://sports.espn.go.com...

5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00000-000

You can't say use aluminium, you have chosen to use glass to replace plastic bottles. Cans and bottles are nearly same. Plastic can be recycled and reused, glass once broken isn't reusable. Plastic is more durable than glass. Tap water needs to be boiled in certain areas to be drinkable, which would increase fuel consumption. Plus, plastic bottles can't be used as a weapon, but glass bottles can shed blood. Glass can reflect light and cause distraction, plastic can't.

5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00003-000

Plastic bottles are not hygiene enough. If the plastic bottles have a tiny gap, bacteria & viruses can hide in there and get into our body. Also,plastic is not biodegradable, but photodegradable. And in reality, most plastic does not ever disappear, but becomes long-lasting "plastic dust". When items like plastic bottles break down, they readily soak up (and release) toxins that then contaminate soil and water, as well as harming animals that ingest plastic fragments.

5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00004-000

These sources say that USA uses 1500 plastic bottles on average per second, and in 2010, 42.6 billion plastic bottles were produced. Glass bottles would be too costly and can't replace plastic. Many people will die of dehyration because of your stupid idea. Increase the character limit!http://www.treehugger.com...http://www.container-recycling.org...;

edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000

People can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled "Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport," published on cbssports.com: "Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible." Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled "Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.," published on the Huffington Post website: "Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But "no walking required"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf.

edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000

For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.

691fdd5d-2019-04-18T17:30:47Z-00001-000

Nuclear reactors are very dangerous and threaten the safety of human lives. Radiation caused by the nuclear reactors there are two. First, direct radiation, which occurs when the radiation emitted by radioactive directly on the skin or the human body. Second, indirect radiation. Indirect radiation is radiation that occurs through contaminated food and drink radioactive substances, either through air, water, or other media. Both the radiation directly or indirectly, will affect organ function through cell-cell formation. Organs that are sensitive to and become damaged. Cells of the body when contaminated radioactive description as follows: the occurrence of ionizing radiation can damage the relationship between the atomic cell with molecules of life, can also alter the condition of the atom itself, alter the original function of the cell or even to kill him. In principle, there are three due to radiation can affect cells. First, the cell will die. Second, there was a doubling of the cell, can eventually lead to cancer, and the third, damage can occur in the egg or testes, which will start the process of deformed babies. In addition, also cause burns and an increasing number of cancer patients (thyroid and cardiovascular) as much as 30-50% in Hryvnia, respiratory inflammation, and inhibition of the respiratory tract, as well as psychological problems and stress resulting from radiation leaks. There are some latent dangers of nuclear power plants that need to be considered. First, human error (human error) which may cause leakage, which is a very broad range of radiation and be fatal for the environment and living things. Secondly, one of which is generated by nuclear power plants, namely Plutonium has a very powerful warhead. Plutonium Because of this, one of the raw material for making nuclear weapons. Hiroshima city destroyed simply by 5 kg of plutonium. Third, the waste generated (Uranium) can affect genetics. In addition, nuclear power emits radioactive radiation that are dangerous to humans. THINK IT OVER! NUCLEAR REACTOR IS HARMFUL!

d72aaf0a-2019-04-18T16:53:10Z-00005-000

No, homework should not be eliminated. But, there should be a limit of homework. A review by researchers at Duke University of more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 showed that, within limits, there is a positive interaction between the amount of homework which is done and student achievement. The research synthesis also indicated that too much homework could be counterproductive. The research supports the '10-minute rule',the widely accepted practice of assigning 10 minutes of homework per day per grade-level. For example, under this system, 1st graders would receive 10 minutes of homework per night, while 5th graders would get 50 minutes' worth, 9th graders 90 minutes of homework, etc.(http://dukenews.duke.edu...)

1ea9d653-2019-04-18T12:31:56Z-00000-000

They should not lower the drinking age in America, However, I do believe that if the parents have consented, drinking may be allowed in private premises to people under 21. There are many factors physiologically, and psychologically that give valid reason as to why the drinking age should roughly stay the same.

636cca62-2019-04-18T15:51:39Z-00004-000

One has to understand that physical discipline is to be used differently depending on the child's age, abilities and needs. You pointed out that your brother at 13 years old was hit because he stole headphones. Just because he reacted negatively to the physical punishment, doesn't mean that physical discipline in general isn't effective. It was not the correct discipline method for the situation. Given that physical punishment is a discipline method, it too is imperative in a child's development. The first five years of a child's life are the most important because during this time the child's foundation for their health, growth, happiness and brain is being built. Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the U.S. state of Michigan found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers. Physical discipline proves to be effective in long run. It was also found in several studies that kids whose parents used a balance of love and limits (including spanking) were found to be doing much better 10 years later during adolescence than kids whose parents were overly punitive and did not show love in various ways to the child. It is up to the parents and their trial and error of discipline methods to know when physical discipline works and when they should stop. If physical discipline is proving to be effective in situations why shouldn't it be a right? If it can't be applied to one case but can to another it should not be eliminated completely. Sources: http://www.cyh.com... http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://articles.latimes.com...

5703a6b0-2019-04-18T19:01:13Z-00004-000

Okay, first of all I would like to say that I do not EVER want to do drugs and put myself in that kind of danger. If Marijuana is legalized, think about all the danger that that would put people in. Even though, the taxes might give our government the money, it's not worth the risk of people dying in order to do so. Also, if marijuana was made legal, think about all of the health problems that would occur. I don't think we need to be paying anymore money for health care. I also understand that you made a point how scientists have yet more to study about marijuana. The government is in fact keeping us safe because WE DON'T really know what's in Marijuana. If they said that we could have it anytime we wanted, think about what that would do to people everywhere. Smoking is already harming people enough. The second-hand smoke? We would all have to deal with that too. So back to my point, we could at least WAIT to find out what is in marijuana and see if it IS safe, and wait for them to keep the law or not. I agree though with your point about your topic on "If Marijuana was legalized we could study the chemicals in Marijuana in more depth and maybe find cures for such "UN-curable" diseases". I think that scientists and doctors with degrees should be able to study marijuana, but I don't think it should be open to everyone. I thank you for listening to my debate.

abd6ace-2019-04-18T19:16:43Z-00003-000

Writer and environmental activist Paul Brooks wrote " In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops" Because I believe that the commodification of the environment is not only morally reprehensible, but a destructive policy I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection. I oppose the resolution for 3 main reasons 1. Global Warming outweighs everything 2. Global warming makes global poverty and famine worse Observation: In Conflict Professor Jonathan Turley reports "Various countries including China made clear that they will continue to put economic development ahead of the environmental, even if global warming threatens a worldwide ecological disaster. Most startling was China"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, told a forum. China has already destroyed its own environmental and may be killing between 500,000 and 750,000 people a year due to environmental violations and pollution. It is now becoming the largest produced of greenhouse gases and its pollution is causing major environmental problems in countries as far away as the United States." Developing countries will have a higher output of greenhouse gas emissions, and thus increase the effects of global warming. Energy infrastructure in developing nations tends to be based on fossil fuels and other polluting agents. Poverty reduction worldwide will require an increase in carbon emitting infrastructure in developing nations. Furthermore power plants and other such greenhouse gas-emitting infrastructure are common areas of work for those living in poverty especially in countries such as the U.S. Contention one: Global Warming outweighs everything, including poverty The condition of global warming caused by an increase in carbon emissions over the past hundred years is possibly one of the most pressing concerns facing humanity. Environmental Scientist, Bill Henderson reports, "The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share." Action on global warming is critical. Unless we prioritize environmental protection their may be no people to lift from poverty left on the earth. Contention two: Global warming makes global poverty and famine worse The economic base of most poor countries is agricultural. However the crops grown by this poor farmers are sensitive to the results of global climate change. Not only does this make the problem of famine in impoverished countries worse but also Global warming will cause further environmental disasters that will have a massive negative effect on those living in poverty as well as everyone else in the world. As Reuters reported in 2005, "Global warming is likely to significantly diminish food production in many countries and greatly increase the number of hungry people, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says. The FAO says in a report that food distribution systems and their infrastructure would be disrupted and that the severest impact would likely be in sub-Saharan African countries. "There is strong evidence that global climate is changing and that the social and economic costs of slowing down global warming and of responding to its impacts will be considerable," the report said. Many scientists fear rising temperatures, blamed mainly on heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels, will melt ice caps, raise sea levels by almost a metre by the end of this century and bring more floods, droughts and storms. Global warming would increase the amount of land classified as being either arid or insufficiently moist in the developing world. In Africa the amount of this type of harsh land could increase by as much as 90 million hectares by 2008, an area nearly four times the size of Britain. Changes in temperature and rainfall as well as an increase in the number of so-called "extreme weather events" such as floods will bring with them potentially devastating effects. The world suffered 600 floods in the past two-and-a-half years, which claimed the lives of about 19,000 people and caused $US25 billion in damages. That excludes December's devastating tsunami in south-east Asia that killed more than 180,000. FAO says scientific studies show that global warming would lead to an 11 per cent decrease in rain-fed land in developing countries and in turn a serious decline in cereal production. "Sixty-five developing countries, representing more than half of the developing world's total population in 1995, will lose about 280 million tons of potential cereal production as a result of climate change," FAO said. The effect of climate change on agriculture could increase the number of people at risk of hunger, particularly in countries already saddled with low economic growth and high malnourishment levels. "In some 40 poor, developing countries, with a combined population of 2 billion... production losses due to climate change may drastically increase the number of undernourished people, severely hindering progress in combating poverty and food insecurity," the report said."

35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00003-000

Thank you, Acetraveler, for taking this debate. I have read other debates you have had, and I am sure that you will provide me with a good challenge, which is definitely something that I look forward to. I understand you are not from the USA, however I can only argue about situations in the US to support my resolution. First I will refute your arguments then I will expand my own arguments. "First, basically, governments have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law The regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people.." If I understand this argument, basically you're asserting that the collective wellbeing of the many trumps the individual rights in question. I will agree that the collective well being is important, but I argue that it is not MORE important than individual rights. My arguments on this ground are 1)There is no evidence presented here that legal prostitution IN THE UNITED STATES is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. 2)The United States was founded on the ideals that individuals have the right to protection from unjust and arbitrary laws that were enacted for the purpose of bettering the majority of society at that time (the stamp tax, sugar tax etc. Were enacted without allowing the taxed to have adequate representation in Parliament, thus violating the rights of individuals in the colonies in order to support the well being of the larger English society in Brittan.) For further examples, a quick look at our bill of rights shows that, of the 10 original amendments to the Constitution, every one of them, in one way or another, upholds the tenant that individual rights are paramount. "Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate." Almost anything can be twisted to harm the dignity of those involved in it. This does not invalidate the rights of the individual to choose to participate in those activities. Let me give an example of how the government actively has chosen NOT to uphold the dignity of women, because that is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... Shows that the courts in the United States have ruled, if a woman is in public, and she wears a dress, she has no right to view her body as ‘private' and her image can be captured, and distributed without her permission, or knowledge. We should all be able to agree that this creates a situation of indignity for women in general. I mention this not to debate whether these laws are just or not, but to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity, when the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws. Obviously, women that choose not to be objects of sexual gratification have no right to expect that choice to be honored, while the laws on prostitution also invalidate a woman's right to choose under what circumstances her body will be used for gratification. Further I will ask a question in regards to this argument. Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law. "Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it." I understand this to mean that you assert that prostitution harms marriage by promoting otherwise faithful men to seek out sex with another partner. I disagree. Cheaters are cheaters and they will cheat, whether they are paying for the chance to cheat, or not. Liars are liars and they will lie. The lack of legal prostitution does not stop infidelity. Please see the following web site for some statistics of cheating on spouses in the US. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage? I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society. "in addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sexes. " Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org...... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. Every one of the arguments at that website has a correlating response. I hold that the responses are clear and accurate and the rebuttals to your arguments at idebate.org are valid. However, the con stance presented does not show that the reason these laws were allowed to exist in the first place were for any reason other than morals (an extension of religious belief), The justifications I read here for the continuation of these laws seems to be primarily, "even if we made it legal and regulated it, some would still work outside of the law." This is of course an oversimplification of the many many arguments presented, but the over feel of the arguments was such. My argument to this would be that I am not against licensure of prostitutes, regulations of the profession, or high penalties for those that operate outside the bounds of those regulations. Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this. That in no way rebuts my resolution.

35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000

In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.

ea3ca04a-2019-04-18T15:07:23Z-00006-000

Should officials be allowed to have their records/ papers, sealed People who are in public office or running for elected or appointed office shouldn't be allowed to seal their records from the public. The records and papers of people who are asking for the citizens to place their trust in them shouldn't be afraid of what their records and papers might reveal and instead should be proud of what they've written or done in the past and want people to know about these things. The citizens should be able to review their records which would shine a light on who these people really are and whether they're who they claim to be, therein lies the rub, perhaps these people who are asking for the people's trust, don't deserve it and the politicians know it..

b567d7bc-2019-04-18T12:55:55Z-00003-000

RebuttalsFirst my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's arguments.1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidThis is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]"The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2]From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on recordArgument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryAntarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3]"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.""Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5]4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesThis is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. "show picture of graph if possible." [6][7]Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources2. https://www.epa.gov...3. http://grist.org...4. http://grist.org...5. http://grist.org...6. http://grist.org...7. http://www.grida.no...

46bf50a-2019-04-18T11:50:59Z-00005-000

As someone who's had coaches that yell a lot, I think they should. Good players are only formed with discipline. You may be thinking "Can't there be another way of disciplining the players?" And yes, there are, but at the same time, getting yelled at pushes the player to their limits and beyond. Reasons a student or player would be getting yelled at is lack of effort, not paying attention and etc. If they were to get yelled it, it would hit them and they'd be like "Oh, I think I need to try harder than what I am doing right now," it's just common sense. It pays off at the end because the coaches smile when they see the player they yelled at doing really good.

2d7ff56d-2019-04-18T15:55:43Z-00003-000

global warming is significantly man man made here is a general website that debunks anti man made global warming folks, claim by claim http://www.skepticalscience.com... here is proof that carbon dioxide has nearly doubled and increased exponentially since the industrial revolution http://en.wikipedia.org... here is a similar graph that shows temperature following a similar fate http://en.wikipedia.org... here are websites that tie together co2 and temperature, and debunks any claims about why co2 and temperature carbon are not always tightly correlated http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... here is a graph showing the thickness of polar caps melting exponentially http://en.wikipedia.org... here is a scientific article that refers to the ice caps being doomed http://www.scientificamerican.com... ======================= warming not caused by volcanoes and the Sun cycles -------------- 'The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are. The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).' '--------- i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt? ---------- scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming ------------- QUOTE With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999 ^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005. ---------------------- Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link: ----------------- * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): * National Academy of Sciences (NAS): * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): * The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - * American Geophysical Union (AGU): * American Meteorological Society (AMS): * American Institute of Physics (AIP): * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): * American Meteorological Society (AMS): * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): ------------------------- so: -we rule out major causes like the sun and earth's rotation -our north pole just melted completely a few years ago. this is a historic event that doesn't occur very often at all. -if we look at ice levels in polar regions... we can see carbon and darker ice during the industrial revolution... and it's noticably lighter at the point the clean air act was introducted... this is simply evidence, but tangible evidence that this stuff is in not only the sky but everywehre. -if we look at temperature increases... yes, it shows we are getting hotter. we are setting records at a more frequent basis. -if we look at natural temperature increases... we see we've been increasing for thousands of years. but, we see that it's been accelerating in recent history, particularly the industrial revolution where polluion occurs. this is in reference to the infamous "hockey stick" graph. no, we can't deduce from that alone that we're the cause, but we can give it as supporting the fact that there's an accelerated increase, especially at our time. -studies have been done that show CO2 being a cause of warming. we might squabble about how much warming, but we know it causes some.

94b6883-2019-04-18T11:25:20Z-00002-000

Thanks to my opponent for proposing this topic and I look forward to debating this resolution. I negate the resolution, "Prostitution should be legalized." My opponent's argument begins with the assertion that "no victim, no crime" is a "universal moral principle." However, he has cited no sources to back up that assertion; people of his persuasions generally hold that moral principles are subjective and personal. So what right does a minority of society have a right to impose libertarian ethics on the majority of a society? His argument makes no sense regardless of what religious beliefs he subscribes to -- if there is no God, then ethics are subjective, personal, and/or based on what is best for society/majority rule, and prostitution is opposed by the majority of society and is detrimental to society. If there is a God, then His commands should be followed, and prostitution obviously does not comply with the sexual morality that the Bible teaches. To conclude, a majority of the world does NOT hold to libertarian ethical principles, and there is nothing to support the claim that his view of ethics are even close to “universal.” Even assuming that without a “victim” there is no crime, prostitution has many victims, from the prostitutes themselves who are placed in an exploitative market, to the relationships which are destroyed by it, to the victims crime that it brings, to the moral principles that it flounts. To respond to the assertion that “stigma” causes the suicide of “sex workers”, there have been no sources cited for that claim except for the “Prostitution Act of 1996” which is apparently a proposed law on a pro-prostitution website. Even if so, prostitution, as an act which contradicts the fundamental moral values of essentially all cultures not to mention the objective moral values, ought to have “stigma” attached to it, just like adultery and many other sexual acts of misconduct. The fact that anti-prostitution laws have not prevented all prostitution is not an argument to repeal those laws, in fact, it may be an argument to increase the penalties. Again, the only source cited is a “Prostitution Act of 1996” which links to a biased website advocating for legal prostitution. While there is always going to be “shady” enterprise operating under the shadows, that is not an argument for legalizing that activity, which would make the situation even worse.

ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000

Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or "standard" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of "standard score" which can help interpret how far a child"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. "They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular "cut-line" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to "assessment is powerful for improving teaching" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.

ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00007-000

Standardized Testing is Good Issitt 15 Standardized Testing: An Overview. By: Issitt, Micah L., McMahon, Maureen, Points of View: Standardized Testing, 2015, Points of View Reference Center, 11/20/15 http://web.b.ebscohost.com... A standardized test is one that is given to evaluate the performance of students relative to all other students with the same characteristics, for example, all fourth-grade students or all students taking AP English in high school. In the United States, standardized testing is one of the primary methods used to measure the performance of educational institutions (and often teachers) and to make decisions about the distribution of funding. Standardized tests have been used in American schools since the 1930s to help identify students with special needs Since that time, a series of legislative measures, including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), has placed increasing importance on the results of standardized tests. In response to those measures, public schools currently administer standardized tests as a prerequisite for receiving federal funding. Proponents argue that standardized testing is the most efficient method of assessing the performance of students and institutions and of maintaining the quality of education. Some critics argue that standardized tests are culturally and socially biased and that educators do not understand the variables that contribute to test scores. In addition, it has been suggested that standardized testing is an ineffective use of federal funding. Though many agree that the testing system is flawed, some believe that the current model can be reformed, while others believe that it is impossible to create a test to accurately measure aptitude across a diverse student population Standardized Test: A type of test given and graded in a uniform manner in an effort to create a universal standard against which the performance of individual students may be measured. Standardized Testing Today NCLB has been criticized by educational organizations who believe that the program represents a misallocation of federal funding. Critics argue that federal funding could be better used to improve pay rates and benefits for teachers, especially since tenure and reappointment are often based on test scores. In addition, some have criticized NCLB for making standardized testing a legal requirement without engaging in a suitable public debate. Under the Obama Administration, NCLB waivers were issued to districts that felt the program was not working for their schools. These waivers exempt school districts from some or all of the federal requirements under NCLB, including standardized testing. Proponents of testing argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that educational funding is given to schools with the greatest need, and that the government must rely on some testing procedure to ensure that federal funding is being effectively used. In addition, some proponents argue that without standardized testing educators would be unable to identify students with special needs. Several independent research studies have indicated that the process of studying for tests helps students to develop long-term recall, even concerning material that is not included in the actual test. However, recent studies indicate that short-answer and essay tests are more effective than the current, largely multiple-choice testing models in helping students to recall information. In addition, some critics believe that standardized testing teaches students to learn in a way conducive to multiple-choice exams (that there is always one right answer) while encouraging teachers to "teach to the test" rather than supporting students' critical-thinking skills. High-stakes federal achievement requirements have also led to several large-scale cheating scandals, including a 2011 revelation that hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers altered standardized tests in order to falsely report student performance improvements. Finally, while standardized tests offer information about a population, they do not provide data that addresses the achievement of specific individuals (Cangliosi, 1990, p. 26).

53650086-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00000-000

true in the case that some parents make too much for their child to recieve financial aid, but, studetns ARE granted the oppertunity for small grants from companies ie. mcdonalds, cvs, dell, etc. where parental incomes have no affect on the amount of money the company may give. In some cases it pays for all their college funds however in the other cases it allows the chance for the student to lower their debt and alongside a job of their own lower the debt all together after graduating.

53650086-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00001-000

yes. agreed that kids that do well in high school do get much needed financial help in college. What about the kids that parents earn too much to receive any state help? Parents might make 60k a year and that is too much for a kids to receive any help at all. with a blow like this kids become discourage to even attend college at all, and let put it like this : more college debt = less college graduate. less college graduate, the harder time this child would have at finding a decent job.

cf1b4187-2019-04-18T16:20:19Z-00002-000

1) Plain and simple; people sign up for this. People are KNOWINGLY risking their health for something they enjoy. Banning this sport would be a violation of the three basic unalienable rights for us, "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Banning the sport wouldn't hold up in court. A lawyer can bring this up and win and shut down the case immediately. 2) You don't, "promote," violence. Violence is inherited as we are hunters and gatherers. It is within our genes to be violent. It is not something that is, "learned."

d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00000-000

Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.

de7efd99-2019-04-18T18:20:38Z-00002-000

as i undrstand it i am supposed to be helping Obama on his tax rate decision. correct me if i am wrong. for starters i agree with Obama because the millinaires are making so much money, but are not paying the tax rates that us poor people are having to pay. another thing is the fact that companies like Microsoft and Apple are big major companies, and they only have to pay the minimum percentage of the taxes. if i am debating the wrong side plzs let me kno. thanks.

36edccb7-2019-04-18T13:24:24Z-00005-000

I will begin my arguments now. ArgumentsI will separate my arguments into two parts: Criticisms and Alternatives. CriticismsFirst, Social Security discriminates against the poor and the middle class. Workers are required to pay 1.45% of their wages towards the Social Security fund when wages are below the wage base. As of 2016, the Social Security Wage Base is $118,500. As a result, those with a higher income pay a lower percentage of what they make, and there is no tax on unearned income. According to the Congressional Budget Office, benefits are about three times higher than taxes than it is for those in the top 5th. In a sense, Social Security is a regressive tax. Survivor benefits actually accelerate the pre-existing issues because they are denied to single individuals, including widows married for fewer than 9 months, divorced widows married fewer than 10 years, and same-sex couples, unless they are legally married. For unmarried individuals and minorities tend to be less wealthy, the system is less beneficial to them than it is for those who hold more wealth. The second issue is that Social Security, like all other forms of welfare, is essentially a Ponzi Scheme. While it is a separate tax in a paycheck stub, the money you pay in taxes toward Social Security is not treated as a separate tax; rather, the money you pay is included in regular tax revenue by the IRS. That money is later used to pay for the benefits to those who are retired today. When a payer retires, they will rely on the next generation of workers to pay the taxes that will finance their benefits. This is how a Ponzi Scheme works: it “generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop. ”The 2011 annual report by the Social Security Board of Trustees shows that in 2010, 54 million people were receiving benefits, while 157 million people were paying it. Out of those who were receiving said benefits, 44 million were receiving retirement benefits and 10 million were receiving disability benefits. In 2011, there will be 56 million people receiving Social Security benefits and 158 million workers paying for it. In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and federal expenses were $712.5 billion. That is an increase in federal tax assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected (although without 100% certainty) to be adequate to cover the next 10 years of Social Security benefits. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover the expenditures required to pay for Social Security. Natural shifts in the demographics put a strain on the system. “[T]he ratio of potential retirees to workers will be 37% — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. … In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action. ” AlternativesThere are many alternatives to the system of Social Security. For example, a private pension plan. A pension plan is similar to Social Security but is also different. When one opens a private pension, they pay money into it and it accumulates into reserves. Those reserves are eventually paid back to the individual in full. Essentially, they cannot touch that money until they need it. Social Security, on the other hand, is not even a fund. One pays into it when they start their first job, and they continue to pay it. Once they reach the cap and once they reach the retirement age, they are paid money each month by the government, though it is not from a fund. It is just cash. The former system works better and is a fairer system because it does not hand out money and does not require new payer to pay for old payers like a Ponzi Scheme does. Besides that, there is also money saving. It is obvious that pension plans are already sufficient, so even if one did not use a pension plan, there are savings accounts. One must choose not to touch that money, and if they touch it for unnecessary purchases, it is their own fault. In addition, individuals are presented with a multitude of private investment opportunities, which allow them to not only save their money, but to accumulate interest on the money that they do not touch and then make more of it. ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe I have provided sufficient evidence that a) Social Security is a poor system, and b) It can be replaced by other means to create a far superior system of retirement savings and financial security. Sources [1] Social Security Administration, “Contribution And Benefit Base,” last modified 2016, . https://www.ssa.gov....[2] Congressional Budget Office, “Is Social Security Progressive? ” Economic Budget and Issue Brief, . https://www.cbo.gov....[3] . http://www.investopedia.com...[4] . https://s044a90.ssa.gov...[5] . https://s044a90.ssa.gov...[6] Brooke Oberwetter, “Social Security: Bad for the Democrats,” last modified June 13, 2005, . http://reason.com....[7] John Wihbey, “2011 annual report by the Social Security Board of Trustees,” last modified June 9, 2011, . http://journalistsresource.org....[8] Securities Exchange Commission, “Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation,” . http://www.sec.gov....[9] Geithner, Timothy, F. ; et al. , “2011 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal and Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,” US Government. *For the most part, I am citing my sources according to the Chicago Manual of Style

ae2bb718-2019-04-18T16:16:17Z-00001-000

Of course the police need to moderate pulling people aside like this, but it would highly reduce crime rate. Case dismissed.

91581604-2019-04-18T19:14:10Z-00001-000

"'I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace. ' Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. " I am not sure this relates to the topic at hand, which is social networking. "Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. " That really didn't change much, so I accept your resolved premise. My opponent has failed to correctly source his information, so I will do it for him. Ought- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Well being- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I accept the definitions as provided. "The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. " Maslow's theory states that one of the last things needed is respect for others and respect from others. There are many other things in his theory needed more than these. " It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. " Why? You have not provided any information why this would be the case. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 1: "'Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday. " ~ . http://www.lockergnome.com...; Freedom of expression, according to legal precedent, does not include harassment. Therefore, this information is irrelevant. "Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. " What if someone is self-employed or doesn't represent a company? "Social networking sites are no longer private. " Social networks were never private. That is the entire point of a social network; For people to talk, mingle, share jokes, pictures etc. REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 2: My opponent has stated two contentions for contention 2. They are: "Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. " and "Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. " My opponent also states the "benefits" of behaving appropriately. I will post a short rebuttal for each. "Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. " On a social networking site, many people will not find it appealing, but rather boring. "Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. " Only if you are an employee of a company. If not, the point is moot. "It may make a great first impression. " That also gives it the possibility of not making a great first impression. The "cons" of behaving inappropriately: "Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. " Once again, if you do not have an employer, then they can't be angry at you. "Giving a poor first impression. " It may not be a poor first impression. It may strike someone that I am a vibrant young individual instead of some dry, stagnant, static person. "People may NOT find you appealing. " Once again, it gives the opportunity to find you appealing as well. It is obvious that the "benefits" do not outweigh the "cons". REFUTATION OF CONTENTION 3: "Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " They can only do as they please as long as it is within the laws. "Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation" Obligate - to pledge, commit, or bind . http://dictionary.reference.com... Bind- to make compulsory or obligatory . http://dictionary.reference.com... I know, a bit of a circular definition, but my point is that when you have an obligation to do something, it is compulsory to do that obligation. Even with my opponents trickery, he has not proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that his resolution is true. He also keeps using social contract and has not yet defined it. Social Contract -the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. . http://www.iep.utm.edu... "You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. " Obviously, these statements are not related to each other at all. Once would cause death if not complied with. "It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? " No. You have not provided any information what forming a society has to do with social networking or freedom of expression. CONCLUSION PRO: "I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites," One random court case and an assumption about employers does not show me enough information about the contingency being divulged and exposed information. "that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately," Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. "and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. " I have proven that they can not do as they please, but rather what lies within the laws. All contentions are refuted, therefore the resolution is negated. CONCLUSION CON: My opponent has provided little or no information for his contentions, and what little information he has provided has been refuted. Also, he has provided little information for the resolution. He barely mentioned social networking and did not mention freedom of expression. Therefore, we can clearly conclude that standards of professional behavior ought not to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites. It was a tad bit hard sorting through your argument, but I did the best I could. Best of luck in the final round. I look forward to your reply. PS I really wanted to say more, but I was limited to only 8000 characters, of which I have none left after this sentence.

91581604-2019-04-18T19:14:10Z-00002-000

"I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment. In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace." Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. It is because I agree with: Dalai Lama, winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, in the position that social contracts lead to well-being, that I feel compelled to affirm today's resolution, Resolved: Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites. Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Ought: used to express duty or moral obligation The highest value within today's round is well-being. Well-being is defined as a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity; welfare. Well-being is most important in today's round because it is a main thing the human race strives for, and it can be achieved with the use of a social contract. The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is defined as the order of necessities to achieve well-being. It achieves my value of well-being because the more appropriate you express yourself, better the chance of people liking you. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more sensible than behaving inappropriately. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. Contention 1: One must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and displays on social networking sites. - "Lawyers for Janice Roman, the defendant in the lawsuit, believe information posted on John Leduc's private Facebook site – normally accessible only to his approved "friends" – may be relevant to his claim an accident in Lindsay in 2004 lessened his enjoyment of life. As a result of the ruling by Justice David Brown of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, Leduc must now submit to cross-examination by Roman's lawyers about what his Facebook page contains. Brown's Feb. 20 ruling also makes clear that lawyers must now explain to their clients "in appropriate cases" that postings on Facebook or other networking sites – such as MySpace, LinkedIn and even blogs – may be relevant to allegations in a lawsuit, said Tariq Remtulla, a Toronto lawyer who has been following the issue. This could easily apply in a personal injury case in which a litigant claims his or her quality of life has been affected, Remtulla said. "If you are alleging that, as a result of an accident, you have not been able to enjoy life the same way and there is a photo taken after the accident showing you skiing or exercising … that could be relevant," the civil litigation and intellectual property lawyer said in an interview yesterday." ~ http://www.lockergnome.com... There are many who have lost jobs and have gone through unnecessary stress due to inappropriate content they posted on their websites. Employers are now using this to ensure that they represent the company in an appropriate manner. Social networking sites are no longer private. One must be aware of the risks they take while posting anything negative or displeasing on their website. Everything you do on the internet is cached and it may cost you your job and maybe even worse consequences. Soon, there will be no impunity with what you do. Contention 2: Behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately. The benefits of behaving appropriately: •Representing yourself in a way that people will find appealing. •Employers being satisfied with your appearance and the way you represent the company. •It may make a great first impression. The cons of behaving inappropriately: •Employers being angry at you for not representing the company appropriately. •Giving a poor first impression. •People may NOT find you appealing. It is obvious that the benefits supersede. Social networking sites can be used for your social benefit. You will often make good first impressions, and be respected. Contention 3: Those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. I have shown you that professional behavior on social networking sites may induce well being, but the resolution has a word in there that twists everything a lot for my argument. Ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. You OUGHT to behave appropriately. You OUGHT to go to sleep. These also can be replaced with should and removal of the infinitive (to); You should behave properly. You should go to sleep. The resolution doesn't say: "Standards of professional behavior ARE to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites." Ought means you are obliged. It is in your BEST INTEREST to behave that way. Do you absolutely have to? No. People can choose to behave properly. It all comes down to being a social contract. You follow that certain set of professional standards for your well being. Isn't that what social contracts are ultimately for? I have shown you that one must be aware of the contingency of being divulged and exposed via the content one posts and the information they display on social networking sites, that behaving appropriately is more congruous than behaving inappropriately, and that those who choose to conduct themselves inaptly can do as they please, but it does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest. For these reasons, we can clearly conclude that well-being should be upheld and that Standards of Professional Behavior ought to be valued above Freedom of Expression on Social Networking sites.

18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00004-000

Electronic cigarretes don't contain Tobacco. It was invented back in 2007 to find an alternative way for smoking regular cigarettes which contains tobacco. According to health.howstuffworks.com, some people say they feel more comforable using electronic cigarrete than regular cigarettes not only because it doesn't contain tobacco but it is also reusable. In addition, it saves them money and help them quit smoking regular cigarettes. PS. The characters aren't limit to 500.

18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00005-000

Tobacco kills. It doesn't matter how it is smoked, whether in a vapor pipe or in cigarette form, people will still get cancer and suffer a slow painful death. Who wants to live like that? Or who wants to watch their closest most loved family members, relatives or friends suffer like that? Inhaling tobacco whether electronically or old fashioned is still inhaling toxic chemicals that can be very harmful to your health. Bloomberg should ban E-Cigs altogether but especially in public places.

18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000

Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.

18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00001-000

Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.

d261fa94-2019-04-18T20:02:44Z-00001-000

You said: "the tests are not biased, the wealthy are often simply more prepared." I don't agree with your definition of bias here. If I said that the tests were inherently biased, I think you'd have a good point. But bias simply means a predisposition toward favoring one group or another, for whatever reason. Here, the reason is that the rich can prepare for the test more easily, and therefore on the whole have an advantage over students with less money. You said: "someone who cannot afford a tutor could simply go to the library and practice online tests, would be well prepared" Just because standardized tests repeat the same concepts and patterns doesn't mean they're obvious or easy to grasp simply by practicing. If a student takes, let's say, 10 practice tests, I don't think we can assume that just by doing that practice the student will have learned the patterns of the test, and be as familiar with them as someone who's gone over each of the patterns with a private tutor. But the crux of my argument is still that the rich are much more easily able to prepare well for standardized tests, and will therefore on the whole score higher than those who do not have access to money - that is a bias. It's not an inherent or malicious bias, but it's a bias nonetheless. Finally, I'm not proposing a solution to the problem (certainly not one that makes the test harder for certain individuals,) or trying to assign blame - the debate is simply about whether or not the problem exists.

d261fa94-2019-04-18T20:02:44Z-00003-000

I agree on your point about testing aptitude - some tests come closer than others, but I don't think standardized tests make much of an effort to test aptitute at all. But that was more of a side note. You said: "To say that you must be wealthy to be good at, and prepared for these tests is foolish" That is foolish, which is why it's not what I said. I said that that the wealthy are more likely to achieve a higher score. The difference is the ease with which the wealthy can prepare - I don't think being rich makes you better test-taker by default, but it certainly gives you an advantage in preparation. Standardized tests, because of their nature, repeat the same patterns over and over again. They test the same concepts, and most of the time they test them in the same exact ways from test to test. Because of that, with enough practice, a student can become completely familiar with the concepts tested, the way those concepts are tested, and the best way to attack those problems. A rich student can find all of this information neatly laid out by a private tutor, and practice to his or her heart's content with the help of that tutor until he or she is fully familiar with the test. A poor student, on the other hand, will find it difficult to practice the same amount or get the same level of advice, because of his or her economic status. Certainly if we compare Student A (who is rich) and Student B (who is poor,) Student B happens to be extremely determined whereas Student A is very lazy, B may very well out-score A on the SAT, but if we compare the groups of students as a whole, because of the ease with which affluent students can prepare for standardized tests, there is a socioeconomic bias built in. I suppose I need to underscore my argument with an assumption about tests like the SAT: they presume to objectively compare students' abilities. Since rich and poor students start off on unequal footing when preparing, that presumption of an objective comparison is incorrect.

dec41d0a-2019-04-18T17:10:53Z-00001-000

As many researches prove air that we breath every day in big cities are more toxic than good cigar or tobacco for handmade cigarettes. As a parent I definitely tell to my children pros and cons of smoking, but no one must tell me where to smoke. I believe that every person must have right to smoke or not. And If you don't like me smoking, you can go for another place! I we will fear just to breath one shot of smoke, we also must close all junk food restaurants and all Coca Cola facility

653ac209-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00002-000

As for fights and violence go, out of school suspensions will be more favorable than in school suspensions. Removing two violent people from the situation in which they are violent is a good thing. Allowing them to go to school for this could cause more fighting, especially if both are in the same in school suspension room at one time (as most schools do). Allowing them to use in school suspension will just cause more violence, something the school is trying to prevent.

653ac209-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00003-000

I believe in-school suspension is better because most kids want to be out of school anyway, so I think of it as a punishment.

2f93939-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00000-000

The response from con sounds very personal. If you are struggling the concept of euthanasia intellectual, then read on. If however you are struggling with this because of a family member, or close friend suffering with a terminal illness, I suggest you simply stop now. If the case is the latter, I offer my condolences.Rebuttal “Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with.”While this statement is unquestionably true, it changes very little about the debate. The death of a terminally ill patient is coming regardless of allowing them a choice on how and when they die."Yet they call physician assisted suicide a "just, and dignified death."But as the battle of what"s right and what"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye."Well, often it is a perfect chance to “say goodbye”. To say goodbye while still in control of their own body’s. In control of their minds. Still in control."I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable."I am providing logical and moral reasoning for an individual to choose to end their life’s on their own terms. Individuals have a moral right to body autonomy. A moral right to make choices about their own body. Externaly interested parties can encourage, attempt to persuade the individual, but they have no moral right to override the terminally ill patient’s decision."The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illnessI know of no such drug, and you have provided no information about it. If, however, someone is attempting to craft a specific drug, that sounds like a good idea.Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%."The leading cause of suicide is depression"Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs."I see no connection between this and the question."In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure.But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves."Telling someone they have a right to do what is already a right is a little counterintuitive. I am suggesting that body autonomy is a right."What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created."You are conflating two issues. Teen suicide and euthanasia. If there were a relation then it would be worth talking about, but I can find no causal relationship, and you have provided none.Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nationOK. Stir the nation. However, as I referenced above, 7 in 10 Americans support euthanasia [5]. 70% is a clear mandate. Section 443.2 of SB 128 states"this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request."I have no issue with this wording."There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake."I see no evidence for this assertion."Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion.Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion."To be frank, the only appeal to emotion I have seen is from you."I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice."I am arguing for choice. The patient’s choice over what happens to his own body."Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide."How you feel is clear. What you may like may not be what the terminal patient wants, and as I have discussed. It is their choice, not your choice.ConclusionThe to control their bodys is the issue in this debate. While emotions run high for intrested family and firends, their wishes simply cannot overide the will and wish of the patient. The choices they make are for their own reasons, and not to be dismissed because of anothers selfish desires.Vote pro.Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...

bbb773d-2019-04-18T18:02:50Z-00006-000

I think it would not be a good idea, but I'm open to your argument.

a2f0ee79-2019-04-18T19:33:42Z-00003-000

Because the interests of felons does not truly represent the interests of the wider population I urge a negative ballot. My value is the preservation of a democratic society because that is the foundation for what democratic societies ought to do. Retain: to keep in possession The resolution asks us what we ought to do. But it does not ask us what we ought to do in a vacuum, rather it says what we ought to do in a democratic society. Thus my criterion is upholding a democracy that best serves the interests of the people. This is necessary for preserving a democratic society because the purpose of having a democracy is to take the people's consideration into account while making policy decisions. I offer 2 contentions for this criterion. Contention 1: It is in the people's best interest to uphold the social contract, and the social contract suggests that felons ought to be disenfranchised. Social contract describes is a set of agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order. This literally functions as a contract, if one side doesn't hold his own, the other side doesn't have to either. There are several reasons why the people want to maintain the social contract: First, without the social contract there would be no consequences for breaking the rules. It would be impossible to preserve a democracy when it allows its residents to do whatever they please. Second: the social contract serves as a check for the government as well. If a government follows the social contract, it will avoid corruption or excessive power. Third, the social contract makes citizens feel safe and allows them to live normal, unselfish lives. If people knew that there were no consequences for crime, they would always be protecting themselves and not others because they are very likely to be robbed or hurt. Disenfranchising felons is clearly consistent with the social contract: The felons didn't listen to the government, so the government doesn't have to listen to them. By committing such a serious crime, the felons gave up their right to make rules. At the very least, this true for felons and committers of electoral fraud. Richard L. Lippke writes, Certain crimes, by their very natures, constitute direct assaults on democratic forms of political organization. Such crimes consist either of attempts to overthrow or undermine democratic governments, as in cases of treason or sedition, or efforts to manipulate or thwart the outcomes of democratic elections, as in cases of ballot tampering or other types of electoral fraud. Not only do democratic governments seem warranted in prohibiting conduct that threatens their effective and appropriate functioning, a plausible case can be made that those guilty of such crimes are prime candidates for disenfranchisement. Their offenses, are different from other kinds of criminal offenses, since they exhibit obvious contempt for democratic political processes. As a matter of fairness it is only fitting that those who act in ways inimical to the operation of democratic governments should be denied the opportunity to participate in determining who will occupy official roles in such governments or the policies enacted and enforced. Those prepared to act in ways that deprive others of realization of the interests served by democratic political participation cannot consistently demand that the state continue to secure such interests for them by not interfering with their exercise of the franchise. Contention 2: Allowing felons to vote does not best represent the interests of the broader electorate. Government is supposed to determine laws that will best benefit society. By their conduct, felons have demonstrated that they don't think it is necessary to follow these laws, therefore giving up their right to make the rules. Society has chosen laws that they think will best protect them and people around them, yet the felons completely disregarded these rules proving that they are either incapable or unwilling to abide by the rules that are necessary to benefit society. Because of this these should be the last people who we allow to make the laws for society. Now I offer this following under view: We cannot embrace static conclusions about what we ought do in a democracy. Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson explain: Keeping the decision-making process open --recognizing that its results are provisional--is important for two reasons. First, in politics as in much of practical life, decision-making processes and the human understanding upon which they depend are imperfect. We therefore cannot be sure that the decisions we make today will be correct tomorrow, and even the decisions that appear most sound at the time may appear less justifiable in light of later evidence. Second, in politics most decisions are not consensual. Those citizens and representatives who disagreed with the original decision are more likely to accept it if they believe they have a chance to reverse or modify it in the future Even if you are convinced every argument in my opponent's case is true, we should never foreclose discussion in a democracy. Foreclosing discussion is dangerous because we might enshrine an ideal that is later proven irrelevant. So even if my opponent's case is entirely true, we still wouldn't affirm because that would end democratic discussion by establishing a normative rule. Moreover, even if the affirmative doesn't end democratic discussion, what ought be done in a democracy is to follow the agreed upon rules of that democracy. Thus, we cannot establish the resolution as something that democracies universally ought to do. NOW THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE: Ok so first my opponents criterion: human rights is not a good value for this debate because voting is not a human right, it is a political right. Human rights are the set of rights that humans are entitled to no matter what society they live in, voting can only be a right if one lives in a democratic society, thus it is not a human right. So you can reject my opponents entire case because his value is not relevant to this debate. Now his criterion: Equality definitely is important in a democracy, but there has to be limits. We should treat people equally UNLESS they have proven to us that they do not deserve some rights. For example, we don't allow felons to carry fire arms. Likewise, we shouldn't allow felons to vote because they have proven to us that they do not care about the welfare of society. His first contention: First, my opponent talks about how black people and women couldn't vote in history, but that's different because there was no good reason for disenfranchisement there. There is clearly a reason to disenfranchise felons. Second, my opponent talks about how it is undemocratic to not let certain minorities vote. But is that really true? Children are minorities, but why don't we let them vote? I think many "children" under 18 are much more mature and have better judgment than felons. Second, the purpose of a democracy is to benefit the citizens. The citizens have chosen laws that they believe will best benefit themselves and others, but the felons blantantly disregarded these laws showing that they don't care about the general welfare. His second contention: Let me make this clear- I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED FOREVER (sorry for caps just wanted to make it stand out lol). I only have to prove that felons ought to lose the right in prison, based on my definition of retain. Allowing felons to vote will not help them reintegrate into society, get jobs, or get an education, especially if they only lose it in prison. It just does not make sense, and even if it did reintegrate them, it is so little that it is not worth disregarding social contract. Cont. 3: LET FELONS VOT

9180e90-2019-04-18T17:05:34Z-00006-000

People under the age of 20 are still immature and have no idea what they are getting into. The world Wide web is both beautiful as it is horrific, social media websites are destroying the brains of a children around the globe. The Internet is being abused by children and predators out there on the web. Adults using hooks to steal kids from there parents who hold there children in high esteem. Still social media is a big hook that predators use to catch a child. Social media distracts them and puts them in a temptation to do mostly bad stuff. Social media is destroying lives and is being used as a tree to hide behind instead of facing a gruesome fact of life, that is called reality. The kids under 20 should not be allowed because reality will be too hard for them to face.

5866798f-2019-04-18T12:20:20Z-00003-000

it should not be used for getting the actual bad guys

e7f110e-2019-04-18T11:23:13Z-00002-000

I have some actually have some FACTUAL... REAL WORLD... EVIDENCE! A study in Ethiopia was conducted in 2017 to see the effects on people who poured their milk in before their cereal, as oppose to their cereal before their millk. The Results were... Inconclusive...?! Oh wait the study cite's a quote on quote "lack of food" in Ethiopia for the reason they were unable to complete the study. Huh. But the math behind the argument still cheks out, as Jesus prophesised in Al Quran 21:33 "He who shaltif pour thy milk of thy ox before thy wheat thou shalt of sowed, SHALL BE STONED!!!

33b3c1cd-2019-04-18T16:44:36Z-00004-000

Ok well first off I thought you were taking the other side on this debate. However it was my mistake I will do my best. Counter #1: You say that almost all of the mass murders were carried out by mentally ill people. However you do not know why they killed those people. They very well could have been influenced by video games. As a matter of fact being mentally ill will make someone even more submissive to video games influence. Example: A mass shooting in Washington, D.C. In which an angry, mentally-ill young man shot and killed a dozen of his fellow citizens. This happened on the week that the popular game Grand Theft Auto V came out. Now just because they are close to each other does not prove anything. This report was made on the subject: According to Media Matters, MSNBC"s Mika Brzezinski of the Morning Joe show said that "it"s kind of hard not to make a connection [between games and the Navy Yard shooting] when you hear [the shooter's] friend saying that he would watch on a life size screen these violent video games for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours." The Telegraph"s Nick Allen described the shooter"s "darker side" which "saw him playing violent "zombie" video games in his room, sometimes from 12.30pm until 4.30am." Is it odd to describe a mass murderer"s "darker side" not as his killings or other unstable interactions with people, but as an activity he shares with millions of other people? (http://www.forbes.com...) Counter #2: Now just as you said in your first argument,"Almost all of the homicides, and mass murders in public are carried out by mentally ill persons." The video games are affecting the mentally ill not so much normal people. I too play video games but if a mentally ill person is playing GTAV then maybe they think it is possible. I cannot write my opposing argument due to the limit. However I want voters to remember I accidentally started this.

180306c0-2019-04-18T15:00:24Z-00004-000

There is currently a lot of unmet need out there in the world. There is a lot more money that people could give to charity and some groups volunteer significantly more than other groups that could be doing more. So I am arguing that most people with employment and in good health {especially the religious because helping people and tithing are featured in the Bible} should be giving and volunteering at least 10% of their money or time each year to charity. {If they are not already doing it}.

d1c59b91-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000

Arguments For Legal Euthanasia1. euthanasia is “inevitable, so it's better to have it out in the open so that it can be properly regulated and carried out.Murder is also inevitable, so should we have that out in the open and regulate it? The obvious answer is no, and which is why inevitability is never a good argument to propose for anything.2. Euthanasia may provide a cost-effective way of dealing with dying people. Where health resources are scarce, not considering euthanasia might deprive society of the resources needed to help people with curable illnesses.This is repulsive to think we are going to be judging people if they are worth the resources to give them possibly life saving procedures, and there is already evidence of such actions going on in places where the practices are legal. One notable case isBarbara Wagner in Oregon in which an insurance company refused to pay for a drug to help her with her lung cancer, but the company was willing to pay for the drugs for physician assisted suicide [1].3. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse someone the right to die, when they are suffering intolerable and unstoppable pain, or distress.It ignore advancements in medical technology to relieve pain, but euthanaisa are not pain relieving or improves quality of life. Pain relief technology has come a long way “A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth” [2]. Now we have methods like using morphine, which is over 80% effective for everyone at relieve pain; also, we have opiates, which have been effective for chronic pain [3]. Further, euthanasia doesn’t actually relieve pain. To explain, sedation just makes you unresponsive to the pain, but once you wake up the pain would still be there because nothing was done to target the pain. Euthanasia is like sedation in the way that it just makes you unresponsive to pain, and nothing was done to target the pain itself. Medicine should be focused on killing the pain not the patient. To say euthanasia relives pain would be equivalent to saying that euthanasia stops cancer from spreading. In a way they are both sort of right, but no doctor would ever recommend euthanasia to fight cancer, so why they do so for pain? 4. Human beings have the right to decide when and how to die. it is becoming less of a choice and more coercion; further, in countries where VE is legal the quality Palliative care, end of life care, is becoming harder to obtain which is actually limiting choices rather than expand it like proponents claim. For example in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal there are problems. Although the Dutch government has attempted to stimulate palliative care at six major medical centres throughout the Netherlands, established more than 100 hospices and provide for training professionals caring for terminally ill patients, many physicians choose the easier option of euthanasia rather than train in palliative care [4]. Further, according to Herbert Hendin, MD, “Data from patient interviews, surveys of families of patients receiving end-of-life care in Oregon, surveys of physicians' experience and data from the few cases where information has been made available suggest the inadequacy of end-of-life care in Oregon” [5]. Arguments Against Legal Euthanasia1. It is opposed by all major religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Islam, and Buddhism. They all believe that human life is a gift from God, and no human being should get rid of such a gift” [6]. Critics will be the first to point out that we have a separation of church and state, and they are partially right. In the United States we still print “In God we trust” on our money and have “under God” in the pledge; however, this may give people a personal reason to oppose it, but may not be enough to enforce laws against it. There are also secular reasons to oppose Euthanasia. 2. It is easier for doctors to administer euthanasia, than learn techniques for caring for the dying which undermines the quality of medicine availableThe American Medical Association, along with many other health organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court during the Washington v. Glucksberg case, stating “properly trained health care professionals can effectively meet their patients’ needs for compassionate end-of-life care without acceding to requests for suicide” [7]. Dr. Hendin also shown “Studies show that the less physicians know about palliative care, the more they favor assisted suicide or euthanasia; the more they know, the less they favor it”, and “Euthanasia, intended originally for the exceptional case, became an accepted way of dealing with serious or terminal illness in the Netherlands. In the process, palliative care became one of the casualties, while hospice care has lagged behind that of other countries” 3. Euthanasia is un-ethical for the patient and people cease to have strong feelings once a practice becomes legal and widely accepted.. When it comes to normative ethics, there are two schools of thought utilitarianism, and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is “to act in the manner that determines the most positive consequences and the less negative ones” [8]. “The motive behind this pragmatic approach lies in the finding of a disproportionate growing trend of health expenses in the last month of the terminal patients’ life” [8]. This model of ethics makes it ethical to use euthanasia because it saves medical resources, and unethical to keep living and using those medical resources. This re-enforces the idea that legal Euthanasia actually limits choices and coerces people. Since, in this theory, the focus of moral evaluations is based on the consequences of the action towards others, it is impossible to know if you are doing a moral action. If because a patient chooses euthanasia to save medical resources, and now they are able to save a future mass murder from dying then they would have done an immoral action. This makes this theory a poor way to figure out if euthanasia is actually immoral or not. Further, in this moral theory there is no human rights since any action like murder could be moral if the majority benefited, so this isn’t a moral theory that people would want to follow. The other theory of Kantianism which gives a clearer answer. Kant believed we derive morality from rationality in which he proposed an unwavering moral law called the categorical imperitive [9]. Kant said to determine if an action is moral or not you would have to make that action a universal law that everyone must follow, and if that action caused any contradictions then it is an immoral action. “Kant would not agree with anybody who out of self-love decides to take his/her life. This is because this is a system that aims at destroying life; hence this maxim could not possibly exist as a universal law” [9]. This moral theory better explains if euthanasia is immoral or not, and better matches what the average person would believe, since in this theory we have human rights. 4. that it is un-ethical for doctors to give such procedures; such practices violate the Hippocratic Oath, and Voluntary euthanasia gives power which can be too easily abused The Hippocratic Oath was made to define the doctor’s proper role and medical ethics. Hippocrates states “the doctor to do whatever is for the benefit of the patient, and to give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest such counsel” [10]. To have legal euthanasia would violate centuries of well established and respected medical ethics. These medical ethics have been carried on by modern medical associations like General Medical Council, and British Medical Association [10]. Without this rule, doctors can abuse their role as a trusted professional. For example, “The government-sanctioned studies suggest an erosion of medical standards in the care of terminally ill patients in the Netherlands when … more than 50% of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, and 25% admit to ending patients' lives without their consent” [5]. Frankly, it is disturbing that any ending patients’ lives without consent is even accepted little alone so wide spread. Also, if doctors suggest euthanasia, they are essentially giving up at their position as trying to help/cure the patient. Sources[1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] http://www.life.org.nz...[5] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...[6] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[7] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[8] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...[9] http://www.academia.edu...[10] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...

4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00006-000

Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: "Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands." "Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient’s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A." ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... "Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")."~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: "Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws." ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, "Die with Dignity". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, "Which one?". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.

4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00003-000

I will readdress his doctor's opinion's on PAS in my second contention. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia without consent. My opponent does not actually refute my argument, but rather attacks the validity of my sources. He states that my ncbi source in C1 is a mere opinion, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong, if we just so happen to look at the bottom and see his sources we can see a trememdous amount of creditable sources that he has site. Okay so what, he has valid sources? Well if we observe our J. Pereira we can see that he is the author of several medical papers and is a very creditable source. (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Secondly, he isn't the only source that I use in my argument that I've made last round. I've made two as this was the second article. (Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j. healthpol.2008.10.003) He also states that my argumentation was false, but this is incorrect as the Euthanasias without consent are that of the doctor terminating the person's life when they do not wish it to end. This simply mirrors that of putting a baby into a microwave and "drying them off. " It's not correct. Plus I've showed that even with it legal we can see that there is still a black market for euthanasia so it does not solve that problem what-so-ever. Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually woke up to be on the O’Rielily Show. (. http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (. http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) Contention 2: Slippery Slope argument. My opponent only discounts my argument as a slippery slope, but states that it doesn't have any support claims, but the two examples that he put up on petistools were the examples I used and I showed that their pregresssion has lead to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. It all started with legalizing PAS and is happening in other parts of the World. Even the US. Just like in Belgium now, people are able to euthanize children, which I had brought up last round. You can see how this is becoming socially acceptable as the numbers and the rates of euthanasias are increasing and in some cases doubling. The cases of Euthanasia in both Belgium and Neatherlands have doubled and skyrocketed since they had been able to legalize it and this is proof of this becoming a norm. There is plenty of information on euthanasia avaliable as several European nations have been doing this for years. Now once again, I understand that Pro is against involuntary euthanasia, but the fact is that I have show that by supporting this will lead to the fact of it getting legalized as it has led to the ability for children to be euthanized by the word of their parents in Belgium in 2009. So I just extend my arguments across the board. I also extend my moral decay argument. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]: 42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide 21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide 5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicide Physician Characteristics: 79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide 39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicide Physicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South (. http://euthanasia.procon.org...) Contention 3: Self-Ownership and sickness My opponent here only quotes about my entire third Contention says I'm wrong and that's it. He doesn't refute it or anything and because of that I extend it across.

d5aa9ae2-2019-04-18T12:38:04Z-00002-000

I would like to start this round by thanking my opponent for responding. He is a new user on the website and I am glad that he seems committed. Now, let's examine his initial arguments.Battle of MoralityMy opponent opens up with the statement that this is not a debate. A small correction: it is. He tells us that this is a battle of morality. But how is this the case? Neither of us had affirmed objective morality prior to this debate. What is moral to one person may or may not be moral to another. This is beside the point. Most of us can agree that 443,000 people dying because of smoking cigarettes is bad, but is it appropriate to infringe on the constitutional rights of tobacco companies and to implement anti-free market legislation? Apparently not, as there are plenty of harmful things on the markets in the US that are not targeted by the same anti-free speech and anti-free market legislation as the tobacco industry. Let's use the example of alcohol and dive a little deeper into the statistics surrounding youth and alcohol:- In 2014, 24.7 percent of people ages 18 or older reported that they engaged in binge drinking in the past month. [1] The number of people in 2010 who were 18 or over was 234,564,071. [2] What is 24.7 percent of 234,564,071? It is roughly 57,937,326 people. What are the effects of binge drinking? They include: Unintentional injuries (e.g., car crashes, falls, burns, drowning) Intentional injuries (e.g., firearm injuries, sexual assault, domestic violence) Alcohol poisoning Sexually transmitted diseases Unintended pregnancy Children born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders High blood pressure, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases Liver disease Neurological damage Sexual dysfunction Poor control of diabetes [3] - 16.3 million adults ages 18 and older (6.8 percent of this age group) had an AUD [Alcohol Use Disorder] in 2014. This includes 10.6 million men (9.2 percent of men in this age group) and 5.7 million women (4.6 percent of women in this age group). [1] - In 2014, an estimated 679,000 adolescents ages 12–17 (2.7 percent of this age group) had an AUD. This number includes 367,000 females (3.0 percent of females in this age group) and 311,000 males (2.5 percent of males in this age group). [1] - Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States. [1] -In 2010, alcohol misuse problems cost the United States $249.0 billion. Three-quarters of the total cost of alcohol misuse is related to binge drinking. [1] While there are some youth statistics in what I have already listed, the NIH does provide some statistics just on youth in America. This is important to highlight, as my opponent has consistently referenced the need to keep tobacco marketing away from youth because of its dangers, yet this line of reasoning seems to fall apart when it comes to alcohol:- According to the 2014 NSDUH, approximately 5.3 million people (about 13.8 percent) ages 12–20 were binge drinkers (15.8 percent of males and 12.4 percent of females. [1] - According to the 2014 NSDUH, approximately 1.3 million people (about 3.4 percent) ages 12–20 were heavy drinkers (4.6 percent of males and 2.7 percent of females). [1]And what are the consequences of drinking while underage? "Research indicates that alcohol use during the teenage years could interfere with normal adolescent brain development and increase the risk of developing an AUD. In addition, underage drinking contributes to a range of acute consequences, including injuries, sexual assaults, and even deaths--including those from car crashes". [1]ConclusionMy opponent argued that the United States government should keep its restrictions on tobacco marketing because cigarettes are "dangerous." These restrictions are "keeping minors and adults safe." This would be a great line of reasoning if the United States government was consistent and did this with all dangerous products on the market. Tobacco products are risky and dangerous, that is a fact. It is also factually true that alcohol is risky and dangerous. Yet the United States puts unconstitutional restrictions on the marketing of one but not the other. My opponent may believe that alcohol should also have legislation put on it to restrict marketing, but that is simply not the case right now in the US. Until that happens, my opponent's argument is unsound and inconsistent with current US practices in regard to these issues. My opponent has done a great job of explaining how these regulations are created and how they are enforced. I do not disagree with any of this. However, he has ultimately failed to justify why these restrictions should exist. Simply saying that the product is dangerous is not enough when there are other dangerous products that have very little to no marketing restrictions. To be sure, I do not disagree with my opponent in his final sentence. The use of tobacco products is dangerous, which is why I do not use them. Alcohol is also dangerous and I do not use it. Marijuana, while illegal in my state (yet it is legal in others), is also dangerous. I would not choose to use it even if it were legal. No one is claiming that tobacco products are not harmful to those who use them. I and many others are simply saying that this war on the tobacco industry is unconstitutional and anti-free market. It is also inconsistent with other industries in the US.Sources[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov...[2] http://www.census.gov...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...

5022c09c-2019-04-18T17:31:45Z-00000-000

Thanks to the House. Only too glad I could be of help, and I hope the exam went well! Response to Rebuttal XIII their manifestos and campaigns serve to outline their ability to detect appropriate solutions to the issues facing the country. The proposition may well give value to referendums in themselves, but it does not follow that referendums necessarily give value to the political process. I contend that they do not. Our respective arguments can be summed up largely by this piece from the Riksdag. . http://www.government.se... Response to Rebuttal XIV Of course democracy is neutral. Of course democracy cannot judge one decision as 'better' than another, being, as it is, just a process, a method. But we are in severe danger of putting the cart before the horse here if we are to claim that all decisions made within a democracy are of equal value purely by virtue of the fact that they were made democratically, which really boils down to popularity. As humans, we have a unique ability to analyse, scrutinise and discern the objective 'best' course of action, and the objective findings may well be at odds with the majority opinion. Should we defer our better reasoning to a mere formula which is inherently dubious and open to abuse? Or should we charge the most competent amongst us with determining the best CoA and then put our faith in them delivering? . http://liberalconspiracy.org... Response to Rebuttal XV Ok, so I admit that my own thoughts in this regard are based entirely on my own experience. I am working class. I am surrounded by working class. My whole existence is working class. I simply do not trust some far-off survey results to tell me what those around me think of politics. I can go straight to the horses mouth in that regard. Indeed, I am IN the horses mouth already, perched atop a molar. I trust my own perception and findings, based on my own interactions, more than a 'survey' though I appreciate that that may not pass as evidence in a formal court case on the matter. But still, there it is. .. Response to Rebuttal XVII "And the various parties would still be trying to undermine each others views" this, for me at least, is the clincher. Might my opponent agree that the constant undermining, petty squabbling, smear campaigning - the whole adversarial, antagonistic nature of politics may be one of the main culprits in the growing apathy of the electorate? Might the electorate be tired of seeing people they can't relate to engage in a meaningless, vacuous exercise in pure rhetoric? Might he agree that it leads to confusion? that the 'truth' is necessarily sidelined for the 'win'? Does my opponent really propose that the answer is to introduce more of the same? Political homeopathy anyone? . http://m.youtube.com... Labour. Think about what Labour ought to be. He is quick to point out how his schooling makes him 'one of us', but listen to his RP accent. Listen to the things he says. Can anyone relate? A minority only. Response to Rebuttal XVIII See above response. It is not 'better', it is just more of the same on a micro level. Response to Rebuttal XIX Introducing such a measure in lieu of an actual cure is surely no reason for doing so. It's time-wasting, paper-shuffling, putter a plaster on a gaping wound. Response to Rebuttal XX Should a parent give their kids sweets and allow them to stay home from school, just because that is what the kids want? The kids would get what they want in the short term, but over the long term such measures would prove disastrous for the kid. They would become fat, unhealthy and uneducated. Their prospects diminished to a point of near-nothingness. Getting what one WANTS, doesn't always equate to getting what one NEEDS. In fact they can often be at odds. A responsible government is there to fulfill the needs of the nation first. And needs should never give way to desires. Response to Rebuttal XXI See my sources for a sound critique. In essence, my opponent, in this line "I turn this point: is Joe Public really qualified to judge which party has the best economic policy? " is arguing that two wrongs make a right. Democracy itself, as it is, is dubious. Adding more of it is alleviating none of the problems associated with modern UK democracy. Response to Rebuttal XXII Agree to disagree. Response to Rebuttal XXII You have in no way cut out politicians. They are the ones who will present and fight the case on each issue that is to be put up for referendum. Suggesting that you have taken them out of the equation is patently false. Response to Rebuttal XXIV It's only isolated since it fails to support your claim. Why sideline what was perhaps the single most vocal example of the point you sought to make? Response to Rebuttal XXV "Parliament exists to represent the coalition of views in the country, so what right does it have to say "the people have spoken but we're ignoring them because we know better"? That's fundamentally undemocratic. " And yet, that exact point can still be illustrated through the use of referendums. I attach a link to the Wikipedia entry on the aptly titled 'Never-end-um' . https://en.wikipedia.org... And I refer to the Lisbon treaty as a case in point. Response to PoC1 I don't believe that Proposition takes this point by any stretch of the imagination. My opponent seeks to reduce the whole interrelated fabric of humanity, society, its organisation and moral obligations down to a heartless, faceless process which is laden with danger and opportunities for abuse. A country doesn't run by mere data. The sum of a country can't be calculated through recourse to Excel spreadsheet formulas, by just making sure the numbers tally. It is much, much more than that. It is much more delicate than that. If there are already pains with democracy as it is, then introducing even more of it is surely just sado-masochism. Politicians and their seedy endeavours to convince the electorate using dishonest means would become even more of an ever-present than it already is. Referendums are not the answer - to anything. They are cheap ways to gain a mandate, but perhaps not so cheap to enact - in terms of both time and money. The cost of financing, campaigning and organising them would give very little return of investment. In fact I believe overall, we would not see a return of investment. It would be all cost, no benefit. PoC2 The premise for Propositions argument here is flawed. He believes that his method cuts out the politicians, but this is erroneous. Someone still has to fly the flag for whatever the proposition would be. Someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the proposition. Politicians would still campaign for the outcome of the referendum. Their presence and attempts to influence our political decision-making would only be - in fact, could only possibly be - greatly increased. The only true difference is that they would no longer be held accountable for the effects that such a decision would bring about. Absolved of any responsibility. A get out of jail free card. Can you imagine a situation that you would like to find a disingenuous politician less than the one proposed by the house? Me either. In sum Well-intentioned though I believe the proposition is, I believe referendums are an inadequate and short-sighted method of decision-making for a slew of reasons. I don't believe that populism is the way forward for anybody. It opens the door for things like Fox News. It only divides the people further. It enhances the undermining, competitive nature of democracy which I believe is one of its main weaknesses and one of the main reasons why people are becoming apathetic to the same old, same old. Hopefully I have argued convincingly enough for the case against referendums.

aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00000-000

Jeffrey Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. (CNN) -- Following the liberal footsteps of Colorado and Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia passed ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana this month. Florida's medical marijuana law failed, but only because as a constitutional amendment it needed 60% support; 58% voted in favor of it. In 2016, another five to 10 states will likely consider legalization -- possibly Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. It's not surprising. Opinion polls show that marijuana legalization now commands majority support across the country. Do these developments mean that full legalization is inevitable? Jeffrey Miron Jeffrey Miron Not necessarily, but one would hope so. Marijuana legalization is a policy no-brainer. Any society that professes to value liberty should leave adults free to consume marijuana. Moreover, the evidence from states and countries that have decriminalized or medicalized marijuana suggests that policy plays a modest role in limiting use. And while marijuana can harm the user or others when consumed inappropriately, the same applies to many legal goods such as alcohol, tobacco, excessive eating or driving a car. Recent evidence from Colorado confirms that marijuana's legal status has minimal impact on marijuana use or the harms allegedly caused by use. Since commercialization of medical marijuana in 2009, and since legalization in 2012, marijuana use, crime, traffic accidents, education and health outcomes have all followed their pre-existing trends rather than increasing or decreasing after policy liberalized. Ricki Lake: Pot can treat cancer in kids Investors betting on marijuana in U.S. This is your body on weed The strong claims made by legalization critics are not borne out in the data. Likewise, some strong claims by legalization advocates -- e.g., that marijuana tourism would be a major boom to the economy -- have also not materialized. The main impact of Colorado's legalization has been that marijuana users can now purchase and use with less worry about harsh legal ramifications. Yet despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured. Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law. Whether that will happen is hard to forecast. If more states legalize marijuana and public opinion continues its support, Washington may hesitate to push back. But federal prohibition creates problems even if enforcement is nominal: Marijuana business cannot easily use standard financial institutions and transactions technologies such as credit cards; physicians may still hesitate to prescribe marijuana; and medical researchers will still face difficulty in studying marijuana. To realize the full potential of legalization, therefore, federal law must change. The best approach is to remove marijuana from the list of drugs regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the federal law that governs prohibition. Standard regulatory and tax policies would still apply to legalized marijuana, and states would probably adopt marijuana-specific regulations similar to those for alcohol (e.g., minimum purchase ages). State and federal governments might also impose "sin taxes," as for alcohol. But otherwise marijuana would be just another commodity, as it was before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. A more cautious approach would have Congress reschedule marijuana under the CSA. Currently, marijuana is in Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs such as heroin and LSD that, according to the CSA, have "a high potential for abuse ... no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States ... [and] a lack of accepted safety for use." Hardly anyone believes these conditions apply to marijuana. If marijuana were in Schedule II, which states it as "a high potential for abuse ... [but a] currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," doctors could legally prescribe it under federal law, as with other Schedule II drugs such as cocaine, methadone and morphine. Given the broad range of conditions for which marijuana may be useful, including muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis, nausea from cancer chemotherapy, poor appetite and weight loss caused by chronic illness such as HIV, chronic pain, stress, seizure disorders and Crohn's disease, doctors would have wide reign to prescribe, making marijuana all but legal as occurs under the broadest state medical marijuana laws, such as California and Colorado. Medical science would also face fewer regulatory hurdles to marijuana research. This "medicalization" approach, while perhaps politically more feasible than full legalization, has serious drawbacks. Federal authorities such as the Drug Enforcement Administration could interfere with marijuana prescribing -- as sometimes occurs with opiate prescribing. Taxing medical marijuana may be harder than taxing recreational marijuana. And the medical approach risks a charge of hypocrisy, since it is backdoor legalization. But medicalization is still better than full prohibition, since it eliminates the black market. For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences. The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here's hoping Congress catches up. Shut up Gabe

aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00001-000

My opponent copied the whole article in without changing anything or even citing. I refuse to rebut such a thing. I extend all arguments and expect rebuttal next round. CONCLUSION:My opponent has failed to prove that Marijuana should be legalized due to the fact that he copied and pasted his article in the second round, and most likely in the first. I have proven it should not be legal due to the health risks and how it can really effect you in the long run. Doing so, I believe I have won this debate.