Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 11

dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00002-000

I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.

969c1d86-2019-04-18T18:25:10Z-00007-000

I am issuing this challenge in regards to my (hopefully) opponent's here: http://www.debate.org...I will be arguing against the proposition that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. My opponent may just accept and let me go first, or he may lay out his argument here and proceed in the normal (pro first) order and skip round 4. Final round for rebuttal only.

ed87c0aa-2019-04-18T13:47:14Z-00002-000

Good evening. While I firmly disagree with my opponent"s position, I also thank my opponent for initializing the debate. I will be arguing that the death penalty should not be used, even in cases of homicide. Argument 1: Our criminal justice system is flawed. There are well-documented cases of innocent people on death row. This fact should really make us pause. Anthony Graves, an innocent man who spent almost 20 years in prison, says, "The death penalty is just not right, period, because... the one fact we all know for sure now is that we can get it wrong."[1] The saddest cases are when the lives of innocent people are taken due to a hiccup in the courts. Cameron Todd Willingham, a man who was lethally injected in 2004, said before his execution, "The only statement I want to make is that I'm an innocent man- convicted of a crime I did not commit."[2] Later, evidence was revealed to show that Willingham was likely innocent. [3] As horrific as this case is, we should remember that this is not the first nor last time innocent people were wrongfully killed. In fact, writer Pema Levy cites a study claiming that roughly 1 out of 25 people on death row in the US are innocent. [4] But even if this report is false, I still believe our system is still corrupt. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides said it best: "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[5] Argument 2: The death penalty is more costly than life in prison. Cases involving the death penalty have been known to cost much more than a non-death penalty court case. Michael Landauer points out that this is because, on general, (1) jury selection is a longer process and (2) death penalty trials are longer. [6] It seems that each state can save money by abolishing the death penalty. A single case in Maryland, for instance, can cost up to three million dollars if the death penalty is sought. Maryland cases that do not call for a death penalty usually cost about one million dollars per case. [7] Dieter writes that "New Jersey, for example, laid off more than 500 police officers in 1991. At the same time, it was implementing a death penalty which would cost an estimated $16 million per year, more than enough to hire the same number of officers at a salary of $30,000 per year." [8] Daryl K. Roberts, former Police Chief of Hartford, Connecticut, says, "It is just absurd that we would pull officers from the streets and at the same time spend millions of dollars to have a death penalty system that has not been proven to prevent crime." [9] If these facts are to be accepted, we must consider the costs. Not only are we sentencing people to death, we are paying for their execution. This money could easily be used for better things. Argument 3: There are reasons in Judaism to reject the death penalty. I have noticed that my opponent used a quotation from the Torah. I agree with my opponent that it is acceptable to use this book in our debates. However, many Jews also accept the whole Hebrew Bible to be inspired. If this is not the case, and only the Torah is inspired, then it seems that every prophet was false! Rabbi Freeman argues that we need oral Jewish tradition to properly keep the commandments of the Torah. [10] It seems that the Torah is not necessarily the last divine revelation. From this context, I believe we must consider what the entire Hebrew Bible has to say. Ezekiel, a man who claimed to be a prophet, wrote, "Say to them: "As I live," says the Lord GOD, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?"[11] G-d has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, according to the scriptures. Why, then, would we use the death penalty? Should we delight in the death of the wicked? Jesus, a historical rabbi, says, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."[12] Jesus calls for us to have extraordinary compassion. Would he appreciate the death penalty? Rather, we read that Jesus, even when he knew he was going to die, said to his disciple, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."[13] This was while Jesus was being handed over to his executioners, some of the people most worthy of death. There seems to be some honor in the life of a pacifist. I encourage my opponent to consider the options. Should we not love mercy and grace? Must everything be blind justice? Argument 4: Our current methods of execution seem to be inhumane. If we are to use the death penalty, we must be ethical and humane. However, our current methods of execution seem to be inhumane. The author of the article Anything But Humane writes, "In the USA, a number of lethal injection executions have been botched. Some executions have lasted between 20 minutes to over an hour and prisoners have been seen gasping for air, grimacing and convulsing during executions. Autopsies have shown severe, foot long chemical burns to the skin and needles have been found in soft tissue."[14] There is a certain amount of respectability in being human. I believe it is inappropriate to resort to the barbaric methods that we know may cause unnecessary amounts of pain. Here is an honest yet gruesome description of execution by electric chair. "For execution by the electric chair, the person is usually shaved and strapped to a chair with belts that cross his chest, groin, legs, and arms"The prisoner is then blindfolded... A jolt of between 500 and 2000 volts, which lasts for about 30 seconds, is given. The current surges and is then turned off, at which time the body is seen to relax. The doctors wait a few seconds for the body to cool down and then check to see if the inmate's heart is still beating. If it is, another jolt is applied. This process continues until the prisoner is dead. The prisoner's hands often grip the chair and there may be violent movement of the limbs which can result in dislocation or fractures. The tissues swell. Defecation occurs. Steam or smoke rises and there is a smell of burning."[15] I wouldn"t want this form of execution to be carried out on my worst enemy! I do believe this could be considered torture in its proper context. For all these reasons, I must disagree with the resolution. I will hold my rebuttals until the second round. Sources: [1] https://youtu.be... [2] http://camerontoddwillingham.com... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.newsweek.com... [5] https://books.google.com... [6] http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com... [7] http://www.urban.org... [8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [9] http://ejusa.org... [10] http://www.chabad.org... [11] https://www.blueletterbible.org... [12] https://www.biblegateway.com... [13] http://biblehub.com... [14] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [15] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

9ccb6cda-2019-04-18T11:33:28Z-00006-000

I believe that gun laws are already just and that no major changes should be made to gun laws in America. If you accept, please state your claim (including specifically what guns should be banned/held restrictions on and/or how the process of obtaining a gun should be changed.) Thank you.

4eed3412-2019-04-18T12:57:55Z-00001-000

I believe school uniforms should be banned from schools because half of our lives are spent at school and every person deserves to express themselves as they are. I find it unfair that teachers are telling students to express themselves more then again, some express them selves using paper, pencil, markers, their voices ect. but some use the art of fashion. It is basically hard for them to express their personality. Use a person with a angry personality for example; I am sure you would not want them expressing themselves verbally do you? and not all are good with drawing, painting and other 2-Dimensional work so many use the art of fashion to express themselves and that my opponent is my major point.

9c4ebe55-2019-04-18T18:01:55Z-00000-000

Thank you to Ron-Paul for this intriguing debate. I’ll jump right in: Con’s first claim is that I am assuming that businesses will pocket the difference between marginal productivity and wages. Yet, he offers no evidence that the the opposite would be the case. In fact, his argument states “For if they were to reduce prices according to the drop in costs of production, they, in their capacity as entrepreneurs and sellers of the products, would derive no advantage from cutting wages.” If, as he says, there is little gain for the business if prices were to be reduced based on the drop in cost of production, it is unlikely that a business would choose to make such a choice. It would likely choose instead to pocket at least the majority of the difference. Next is presented another mostly irrelevant argument in which Con argues that if wages are set above the marginal productivity, then employment will decrease, however, this assumes a MW that is set above the marginal productivity of most workers. My opponent’s attempt to discredit my argument concern the Industrial Revolution does not achieve its purpose as his source concedes that wages were low during this period. “The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them.” [1] This supports my argument. I never claimed that factory owners forced people to work, nor did I claim that conditions were so good before the IR (another point addressed by Con’s source). My points were that the IR provides an example of a time when people were payed below their marginal productivity, and also that when only low paying jobs are available, people will end up being forced by the situation to take a low paying job. A MW means that the lowest paying jobs will at least have some decent pay associated with them. I have demonstrated and Con has not proven that wages will necessarily remain close to marginal productivity. Conceding the Post Hoc of his R3 evidence, in R4 Con presented several new charts to support his MW-unemployment correlation claims. His first two graphs make the previously addressed assumption that a MW would be set above marginal productivity. His third graph is not to be found on his cited source #5. I suspect that he meant to cite it as source #6 as that source reveals a picture of the graph, but provides no information on what the true source of the graph is. This means that neither I, nor the readers, have a good way of verifying the information. The graph states that it is using the real MW, but does not state for what time the MW is adjusted. Next Con writes that there is “a mountain of empirical evidence that the minimum wage increases unemployment particularly among teenagers” and cites two studies. Although some economists have done work that would lead to such a conclusion, others disagree. A study done at the University of California concluded just the opposite [2]. Con attempts to refute my initial R2 argument with a ridiculous amount of unneeded sources such as a dictionary definition of the word positive and are based on the same unproven assumptions as the rest of his argument. I have already addressed his arguments that the MW causes unemployment and that wages will not fall without the MW. Finally, Con states that a MW of $2 would be unnecessary, however I have already explained in the previous round that without a MW wages could gradually fall and unemployed people in desperate situations would essentially be forced into working for ridiculously low wages. An interesting point concerning this is that Newsweek conducted an experiment the results of which concluded that some Americans said they would settle to work for 25 cents an hour [3]. I have shown that the MW is economically sound and necessary for a healthy society. Vote Pro!! Sources: [1]- http://www.fee.org... [2]- http://www.irle.berkeley.edu... [3]- http://www.thedailybeast.com...

9c4ebe55-2019-04-18T18:01:55Z-00002-000

In this round I will respond to Con's R2&3 arguments and defend my own case somewhat simultaneously.A key part of Con's case is that the minimum wage (MW) increases unemployment. To support this claim, Con presented both a hypothesis containing a false premise as well as data which is some of which is interpreted fallaciously and does not actually support Con's case. Con's hypothesis included the statement that workers' wages will likely be close to their marginal productivity because of competition for labor. While this sounds like it would be true in an economic dreamland utopia where supply and demand function perfectly and everyone has access to equal information and is subject to the same situations , reality does not necessarily work out that way. Many, if not most people who are most affected by MW laws are unskilled workers who desperately need a job to support themselves and/or their families. If the MW were to be abolished, a business would likely lower their wages below the marginal productivity of its workers, hoping to make bigger profits for the people on top. Other businesses might also lower wages for the same reasons. Uncertainty about finding a new job would cause workers to stay with current employment even though their wages had been cut. Over time, the difference between the marginal productivity of workers and their wages would certainly increase. If this type of situation seems fanciful, there is always history for a guide. During the industrial revolution up through the applications of the MW, workers were certainly paid extremely low wages for long hours of work. So why didn't they just leave in search of better paying employment? After all, don't businesses have to compete for these workers? Yes, they do have to compete, but if they're all paying similarly low wages, people will still be forced to work for less than their marginal productivity. A MW ensures some floor.A large problem with much of Con's case is that he merely addressed an increase in the MW as causing problems, not the existence of the MW itself. Con compared the state averages of those states that have MWs higher than the federal to those that only obey the federal law and found that the first group had higher unemployment. This comparison does nothing to support his case as it compares varying degrees of the MW, not with a MW and without one. More importantly, however, is the fact that just because Con can compare level of MW and unemployment does not mean that one causes the other as Con seems to assume. In fact, looking at Con's source, the level of unemployment appears to have more to do with a state's region that its MW laws.Next, he presented a graph. His graph only shows the years 2000-2010. It should be noted that unemployment is seen to increase while the MW stays flat in the beginning of the graph, and the increase in unemployment that happens to coincide with a raise in the MW also occurred at the same time as the Great Recession. Once again,it is fallacious to assume that MW effects unemployment.Con next addressed teenage unemployment, claiming a correlation between a raise in the MW and teen unemployment. The problem is that his hypothesis here is based on the false assumption that the MW causes unemployment and his data to prove this point suffers from the same Post Hoc inferences as the previously addressed data. Once again, we are presented with a graph that demonstrates unemployment increasing during the recession and this is blamed on the MW.This general claim is followed by a more specific claim regarding minorities, but once again there is no reason to believe that MW is more responsible for such things than the general state of the economy in general.R2 is concluded by Con with the claim that prices will rise as the MW rises. Once again, this only addresses an increase, not the existence of the MW as well as drawing conclusions with the Post Hoc fallacy. As Con went on in R3, his logic did not get any better. He continued debating whether the MW should be increased. This is exemplified in his statement: "If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will not be able to afford as many employees." This statement implies that I am arguing for an increase in the MW which he would argue would increase unemployment. The rest of his list continues on in this manner making reckless assumptions that are based on the previous assumptions which are incorrect or not applicable to the resolution.Next, he presented an elaborate study, however, this too is not really applicable to the matter at hand as it discusses not whether the MW should exist, but rather the effects raising it has, as shown by the title of the study: "Failed Stimulus: Minimum Wage Increases and Their Failure to Boost Gross Domestic Product."Con's final piece of evidence continues in this vain and does not why the MW should not exist, but rather why it should not be raised from $8 to &11. This evidence continues by saying: "Many people say that 'owners will pay their workers $2 per hour if there isn't a minimum wage.' This is a ridiculous statement if logic is applied. You have to ask yourself, would you work for $2 per hour? Probably not. Do you know anyone that wants to work for $2 per hour? Probably not."Would someone work for $2 in today's economy? Probably not. How about $5? There's probably someone out there willing to work for that. And then wages fall a bit. And if somebody will work for $5, why not $4? And wages fall a bit more. And in a few decades we're at $2. But competition ensures that this would never happen, doesn't it? Tell that to the workers of the Industrial Revolution or the workers in the sweatshops in India and China and Taiwan. Someone is always willing to work for a little bit less.Additionally, it should be noted that Con has not really refuted my R2 argument, which stated that a MW ensures that wages will rise as inflation rises.In conclusion, throughout the debate, Con has merely made a rather weak case for why the MW should be lowered, not why it should be abolished, drawing on Post Hoc fallacious evidence. I have explained why a MW is necessary. I have fulfilled my BoP, Con has not.The resolution is affirmed.

a1ac5625-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00002-000

. Since your argument is that video games caused NO violence it is easy to prove you wrong. Most of gaming today is online, and alot of yelling, remote bashing, and violent actions occur when certain people play them. Ever hear of the term swatting? It's when one gamer calls the SWAT team on another gamer http://www.theblaze.com...

59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00002-000

Sadly, I seem to be speaking to an empty room. I will argue that the R1 argument by CON cannot be sustained as presented, and must be modified. This is a breakdown of the argument: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work.Here, the key error is the inclusion of the word “illegal.” CON seems to consider any immigrant to be “illegal,” which presumably includes those legal immigrants who come into the US on a work or student visa. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to It is difficult to understand how immigrants could be allowed sanctuary in their home country. The statement is paradoxical, and may not be true. P2(A): Unless they have a "working Visa" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely If they are in the US on a work Visa, then the person is not here illegally. P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries This conflicts with P1, where CON states that ‘illegal’ immigrants should be allowed into the country in order to work. P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged) Concluding analysis: CON makes an error when he groups all immigrants into the category of ‘illegal immigrants.’ The argument that was presented cannot be reconciled with itself; immigrants cannot be simultaneously allowed into the US in order to work, and still be rounded up and deported. Additionally, those with valid, legal clearance to enter and visit the United States can no longer be considered ‘illegal.’ Moreover, many of the positions in the R1 argument are already law, or represent only the opinion of CON.

59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00004-000

As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.

3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00008-000

I negate the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because if it was legal in all states a lot of people would be dead just because they don't want to live.

3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00009-000

I affirm the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because when a person is in excruciating plain, on their death bed, should be able to be put out of their misery, and to be with Jesus.

185c50aa-2019-04-18T16:11:29Z-00003-000

no ok they r not a sport!! Moving and jumping and running and throwing and lifting is a sport. sports: softball,basketball,volleyball,football,track and field,cross country,cheer, etc.

fde913a8-2019-04-18T19:39:14Z-00002-000

The subject being "Global Warming is the result of Human Activity" Also known as Man-Made Global Warming I have fought this belief in a previous debate and it only seems fit to me to use the same opening argument. So begins the debate, thank you Rune for the subject and thank you readers for viewing my points. The earth is warming up... DUH! but why is the earth warming? my goal in this debate it to fight off the common theory that we are the couse of Global Warming. Global warming is a corner stone issue with many news media programs, as well as a corner stone issue for the democratic party. I had the privilege of talking to a scientist who testified as well as 6 others in front of congress. He says, and i quote "The largest production of Carbon Dioxide in the world isn't even close to use, its in the ocean, its plankton." He also told me that we have very little if any effect on the worlds climate. he says that the second largest production comes from south America in the rain forest (in which he spent 10 years in studying). He says that the trees in the rain forest store carbon dioxide for hard times when they need energy, when the hard times don't come and the tree is fully grown they let out the carbon dioxide. My first statement is that we have little effect on our environment.

fde913a8-2019-04-18T19:39:14Z-00003-000

i define the topic to mean: globel warming over the past few decades is a result of human activity. so there

40d97d90-2019-04-18T18:47:18Z-00005-000

This is my first debate here and I think this will be an interesting topic. I have not seen it on this site. As Pro I will contend marijuana should indeed be legalized. Con will argue it should NOT be legalized.

f9d1c524-2019-04-18T15:02:19Z-00001-000

My opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments for the past 2 rounds. And instead used this whole round for sources, so I will examine them for this round. The greater good, even though my opponent says is a neutral film, is a biased anti-vaxxer production. It claims there is a link between autism and vaccines, and uses examples as well. Normally there has to be a strong correlation to establish a link between two things like this, but the Greater Good uses a grand total of 3 examples. Individual side effects happen, they happen with every medical treatment, but that doesn't mean there is a real and urgent link between that type of medical practice and whichever side effect happens. Health impact news is also a biased source. It's motto is "news that impacts your health that other media sources won't tell you. " On the front page I found an article suggesting that "essential oils" are more effective and less dangerous than approved drugs. They say this, and they say a "rapidly growing body of research" supports this idea. But they only provide a link to a news article in "the atlantic," which is just your general news website, and the author has very limited qualifications.

e9fceef8-2019-04-18T14:01:57Z-00002-000

In ROUND 2 I mentioned that I share my opponent's concern for animal rights and good treatment while in the care of human owners and care-takers, including those that work in animal research laboratories. I also explained in an earlier ROUND that there are federal laws inside the US that protect animals (including research animals) from gratuitous harm and unnecessary absuse. I will cover both of these topics, including new and developing research alternatives to animal testing, in the following ROUND. Animals should not be unnecessarily harmed to advance medical research and understanding in humans, and wherever we can bring relief to animals in the process of animal testing, we have a humanitarian and ethical obligation to do so, especially since we're a civilization that adheres to the pivotal concept of rights, including the promotion of general tranquility and happiness. How we can avoid extending that concept to the animals we're in contact with regularly appears both intellectually dishonest and stubborn to me. Plus, I think it takes away from the philosophical grounding for human rights and standards of humans behavior. But more on that in the following ROUND.I this ROUND, I will continue to cover a benefit of animal research and then go over what kinds of animals are most regularly used in biomedical research animal testing. As we shall see, research on familiar pets and nonhuman primates makes up a very, very tiny amount of all testing performed on animals [1][2]. This ROUND will be short due to personal time constraints.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals--revisted issueSome animal research also benefits animals. I covered this concisely in ROUND 2. Now I'm going to go over more specific examples.In 1967, the very first pacemaker was implanted inside a dog [1]. This medical research and device was then used to treat human patients with abnormal heart rythyms, which saved tens of thousands of lives as a result. Today, hundreds of canines each year recieve pacemakers to keep their hearts beating normally and to prevent early death [1].Some of the first evidence that AIDS in humans was caused by a virus came from research on a type of leukemia that affects cats. An effective feline leukemia vaccine was developed in 1985 because of animal testing; it may offer clues to a cure for AIDS in humans [1].Every year, approximately 350 dogs receive artificial hips because of a prevalent diagnosed disease that damages and weakens their joints [1].Animal research has led to a common medical procedure performed on cats, dogs, and horses that alleviates cataracts, replaces the lens in their eyes and restores sight [1].The CAT scan was developed with the use of pigs. Today, this device is used by veterinarians to view animal organs without surgery [1].Animal research led to the successful development of the hearing aid. Veterinarians commonly treat deafness in aging animals now with the use of animal hearing aids [1].One out of 10 young horses is born prematurely. Today, special horse neonatal centers offer these young equines lifesaving drugs and respirators until they can get on their own four feet and function normally [1].The benefits of animal research to animals is quite extensive. Today, animals receive laser surgery, asthma and allergy treatments, chemotheraphy, bone grafts, skin grafts, epilepsy medicine, dental care, antibiotics, anesthesia, blood transfusions, and dozens of other types of treatments [1]. Even more, many new treatments used on animals are cutting edge and may in the future help human patients afflicted by related medical issues and diseases [1].None of these treatments and medical advacements would be possible without research on animals.The Vast Majority of Animal Researh is Conducted on Rats and MiceEven though biomedical research is conducted on many different types of animals in preclinical trials, the vast majortiy of it--approximately 95% of it inside the United States--is conducted on rats and mice [2][3]. There's actually several reasons as to why they're the animal of choice inside the research lab. Mice and rats are small, easy to house and maintain; mice and rats are inexpensive and can be purchased in large numbers; mice and rats reproduce quickly; they can be conveniently bred to be genetically identical, which is important in medical trials [3]. The most important reason of all however is that they closely resemble humans genetically, biologically, and even behaivorally; as a result, mice and rats have been used to development drugs and treatments for all sorts of human disorders and diseases over the course of the last century, which makes them a dependable research specimen [3]. They are physiologically and genetically well understood [3]. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," says Jenny Haliski, of the US National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Welfare [3].Most of the remaining research is performed on farm animals, rabbits, hamsters, guinea, fish and insects [2]. Less than one percent of the remaining animal research is on cats, dogs, and non-human primates combined.Rats and mice are brilliant animals, but they're nowhere near as intelligent as humans, according to the encephalization measurements that biologists use to estimate animal intelligence or cognition [4]. Not only are rats and mice far less intelligent than humans, according to encephalization measurements (a scientifically-credible way of determing intelligence in animals), but they're also less intelligent than dogs and cats, and about as intelligent as rabbits [4], which makes them better specimens to use from an ethical point-of-view. Rats and mice also have short life spans (2 to 3 years on average), which makes them better candidates to use than longer-lived cats, dogs, and nonhuman primates [5].[1] http://www.swaebr.org...[2] https://www.amprogress.org...[3] http://www.livescience.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://discovermagazine.com...

e9fceef8-2019-04-18T14:01:57Z-00003-000

In my opponent's Round 2 response, there was no discernable rebuttal to my arguments in Round 1. It even appears that my opponent actually took up my position, which I welcome.Again, I want to reiterate that I do share my opponent's passion about animal rights and do believe animals should be protected by modern laws. I also believe that animals that are involved in animal research and animal testing must be treated humanely when they're not enduring these kinds of potentially painful and gruesome tests; and I think the use of animals in experiments should be avoided where they can be. This is the subject of intense debate surrounding the biomedical research field and other fields where animals are tested, such as the cosmetics industry.Preclinical Trials (Animal Testing) Are an Inescapable First Step in the Development of a Safe DrugHowever, a lot of animal research and testing is unavoidable, especially whenever scientists have to examine whether a medicine or substance is safe for human testing. Animals are used in early trials of a new medicine or chemical (or cocktail of either) because scientists first have to evaluate likely effects before the substance is used in human trials. This is done not only to evaluate potential health risks with the new medicine or chemical--including risks of death--but also to get an understanding of how the substance(s) work inside the organism, to see which systems are affected and how. Understanding how these substances work inside the organism can likewise provide scientists with a critical understanding of how these substances are likely to work within a human. In other words, the efficacy and possible side-effects of the new drug are being determined as well (obviously). There's just too much risks in going straight to human trials, and we would see potentially thousands of human fatalities/casualties before these trials produced just one effective drug. The use of animals in biomedical research is an unavoidable first step if our aim as a nation is to prevent the loss of human life altogether. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has to first scrutinize an experimental drug tested on animals, and deem it "reasonably safe", before it can even approve it for clinical trials (human trials) [1][2]. In fact, the FDA reports on its website that "most drugs that undergo preclinical (animal) testing never even make it to human testing" or even to the review process, because of self-evident defects [1]. Could you imagine the harm caused to human subjects if animal testing was avoided altogether?Preclinical (animal) testing is so important to the drug development process and to the assessment of a drug's potential dangers and performance that most drugs aren't tested exclusively on a single animal type, but have to be tested on several [2]. This is "because one drug can affect one species differently from another" [2]. This is an important fact to know because "some animals serve as accurate representatives of a human's anatomy, while others share identical biochemical pathways" [3]. One animal might be a perfect representative of a particular human system or organ, while another more accurately reflects a human metabolic pathway. In most instances, the use of at least two or more species in preclinical trials can't be avoided, out of human safety concerns.That's not to say that researchers are at liberty to test on an endless supply of animals in these trials. They're not. The FDA explains that drug companies are required to test on as few animals as possible, and are still obligated to ensure their humane and proper treatment [2]. There are also federal laws within the United States that explain how research animals must be treated, and what the limitations of drug companies are with respect to these animals--something which I'll cover in a following Round.Some Animal Research also Benefits Animals!It's true that most research with laboratory animals benefits humans. But some animal research has also benefited animals. Animals could not profit from this research unless testing on laboratory animals happened in the first place!According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing has led to "life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species" [4]. Vaccinations for rabies, tetanus, feline leukemia, distemper, parvo virus and current treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and other animal illnesses would not be possible unless research was conducted on laboratory animals [4]. Because of this research, many familiar animals (and some wild) now have extended, healthier, happier lives. Such research has even yielded advanced treatments like joint replacement and pacemakers for animals [4].For a Following Round . . . Laboratory animals are also important in understanding potential bioterror threats posed by terrorists, and in researching possible vaccinations and treatments.[1] http://www.fda.gov...[2] http://www.fda.gov...[3] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[4] http://fbresearch.org...

98f89922-2019-04-18T19:47:39Z-00003-000

The majority of your argument rests upon the fact that our economy is suffering because people are foreclosing on their mortgages which is true. However you cannot prove that requiring a Personal Finance class in high school would change this situation. As you have mentioned, unforseen financial difficulties are a factor in determining one's ability to pay up. So not knowing how to properly balance a check book is not the only or even the main reason why people are unable to honor their mortgage rates. An increase in gas prices, for example, or higher taxation... things that people have little to no control over in the economy... are all reasons why Americans are becoming less wealthy and have less money to spend. In addition, there are many classes in high school that we are required to take but do not apply in our daily lives, such as Calculus. You cannot prove that people would take this class seriously, learn from it, or even use its teachings to help themselves. For instance if a college kid wishes to spend every last nickel he has on booze, so be it. I highly doubt a class telling him not to do so would deter him, as we already have mandatory classes (health) and programs like D.A.R.E. that do little to nothing to prevent people from acting a certain way or engaging in risky behavior. Plus, classes like Spanish or other foreign languages are required in high school... that doesn't mean that people retain its teachings many years later, when people are usually older and in a position to buy a house and make a lot of money anyway. People wouldn't necesarilly retain anything. My point is that there is no proof this class would actually work or even have an impact, and if it would, so be it... but don't make it MANDATORY. Doing so might interrupt current school systems or high school curriculums. And we already have classes (most of which are mandatory) that can teach you similar ideas about the economy so that people can make judgments about their own situations and make their own decisions, such as Micro and Macro Economics, and also educate people about the economy of the US as a whole and not just pertain to each individual person. We are all different and come from different financial backgrounds... how can a class incorporate aqequate diversity (while still functioning correctly) to attend to each students unique situation where different strategies may be necessary? And on a final note, our country has been in economic crisis in the past, and somehow we have always found a way to overcome it WITHOUT mandating this type of class. Thank you.

e6166c64-2019-04-18T14:24:14Z-00002-000

This debate isn't about CAN we fund them, it's SHOULD we fund them. I'm playing by CON's rules: this is assuming an infinite monetary source and a magical stability in the value of the dollar.Why not give more money to them?Why not give more funding to everyone?What are the harms from that?You should've defined terms.

570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00002-000

It is because I see through the facade of social networking websites straight to the many obvious hazards in the business that I urge a negative ballot on the resolution at hand. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. ============================================================================ Contention I: Social Networking Web sites have little security built into them. ============================================================================ SUBPOINT A- HACKING IS PREVALENT ON SOCIAL NETWORKING WEB SITES, AND THIS LEADS TO IDENTITY THEFT Brian Krebs of the Washington Post writes in August of 2008, "Social Networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, and LinkedIn are fast emergiing as some of the most fertile grounds for malicious software, identity theives and online mischief-makers." Think of the ways that these social networking can be used as a focus for identity theft. The majority of the useres post their birth date and other personal information, items commonly asked by banks to determine a person's identity. Combined with the full name and things like pet names, Mother's maiden name, and other such information, it isn't difficult to work out the rest. According to the Department of Justice in October 2006, "There has been a sharp 34% increase of Social Network users reporting having personal information stolen over the internet in the past year." With so many hackers targeting social networking websites every day, these site are part of the problem towards helping Identity theft. SUBPOINT B- IDENTITY THEFT HARMS THE ECONOMY According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a September 2003 report on Identity Theft, "1 in 30 Americans surveyed reported having a personal account on the Internet taken over. The average los from the misuse of a victim's personal information [was] $4,800." The same report explains that this amounts to approimately $48 billion removed from the economy every year. Given the current state of our economy, when money is precious, this 48 billion could not come at a steeper cost. ============================================================================ Contention II: Social networking sites are destroying technological innovation. ============================================================================ While it might seem easy to view the Internet in the abstract, as some ethereal object, the truth is, its not. The internet only exists because of the physical infrastructure provided by private investors. For every byte of information sent on the internet, there exists a physical server that hosts the memory storage for that information. These servers are bought and paid for by a number of actors, the majority of whom are private investment companies. The contention that I bring up is the internet's need for storage capacity is drastically increasing; requiring a drastic increase in the amount of money diverted to purchase infrastructure needs. This is because of social networking websites. SUBPOINT A- THE INTERNET IS REACHING THE LIMITS OF ITS CAPACITY, AND SOCIAL NETWORK WEBSITES ARE CAUSING THIS TO HAPPEN. Without investment, the Internet's current network architecture will reach the limits of its capacity by 2010. The "unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic" would increase 50-fold by 2015. Eight hours of video is loaded onto Youtube every minute. Five hours of video is loaded onto Facebook and Myspace every minute. Video will be 80 percent of all traffic by 2010, up from 30 percent today. [The internet] is a finite service upgraded and maintained by private investors: without necessary investment, it will run out of room Websites like Myspace, Facebook and Youtube all suck up precious bandwidth through uploading massive amounts of pictures and video. There are no other places on the Internet that contain the same amounts of massive files, nor engender such uploading by making it easy and socially desireable. The choice for the internet is to crash, or significantly increase investment in physical infrastruture. Obviously, because of the value provided by the internet, investors will not allow it to crash. What that will mean, however, is that they will be forced to bottleneck their precious resources into creating physical memory storage devices to keep pace with the amount of memory storage. Imagine the internet without major contributors such as "amazon.com" or ebay. Most people in today's economy spend most of their time on these types of websites just to earn a living. Furthermore, imagine the world without google. Pure chaos. It is because I believe anything that harms both the American People and the American economy so much outweighs any positive aspects of social networks, that I urge a negative ballot today.

8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00002-000

New born babies are given vaccines at a young age becuase that is when they are not vulnerable. Now think about back in the day when babies could easily get sick and most them died at age 5 or below. But now in medical advance can keep infants and new horns alive. Serious reactions are very rare, happening in 1-2 people out of a million shots give. Thousands of people take part in clinical trials to test a vaccine before it is licensed by the FAD (Food and Drug Administration). People who have vaccines protect others they love and including babies becuase they are too weak to protect from foreign invaders in their bodies. Now think about chicken pox; almost 11,000 Americans had to go to the hosiptal and over 100 died, each year for chicken pox. Now becuase vaccines chicken pox are rare to see and helped saver lives. Now in 2008, a San Diego boy got measles on a family trip to Switzerland. When he got back home he spread it to family members, classmates, and even children at the doctors office. The only people who got sick where the ones who didn't get shots including a baby. So do you really want people have this fear of spreading disease to innocent people? www.cdc.gov/vaccines www.whyichoose.org/vaccinesafety.html www.vaccines.gov

8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00005-000

You said if vaccines weren't safe then doctors wouldn't be giving them to us, right? Well sadly that's wrong vaccines do hurt us. Vaccines can cause a threat to our bodies. Common childhood vaccinations may cause serious reactions including anaphylactic shocks, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and other disorders. Vaccines can cause a clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules, which may lead to lymphatic cancers suck as leukemia and lymphoma. www.vaccines.procon.org

8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00007-000

Actually many studies have examined possible links between vaccination and increase prevalence of autism. There has been a study, the Lemaet research reported that showed a link between a MMR vaccine and autism. It remains possible that immunzation may trigger the oneset of autism systems in children with underlying or genetic condition. www.autimspeaks.org/science/policy-statement/onformation-about-vacines-and-autism

8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00008-000

Vaccination should be mandatory because a vaccination does nothing to harm ones religion or other beliefs. If the human body is so precious then shouldn't we be doing anything to protect it? Advances in medical science can now protect our society, families, and friends from disease that could have wiped away our race. These vaccination have completely eliminated disease like polio and whooping cough. Vaccinations have no serious side effects, they only side effects are redness or soreness. When people say that vaccinations can cause autism or other deadly side effects are just myths.

8f9f16dd-2019-04-18T14:54:32Z-00004-000

Laws against abortions do not stop abortion from happeningConsider the following scenario, a woman wants an abortion, but since abortion is illegal, she can't have one. This isn't true, because she can infact attempt an abortion without the help of people with the necessary skills. If she desperately wants an abortion, she will probably resort to unsafe abortions. Each year, 20 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place each year, and out of these, 67,000 women die due to complications of unsafe abortion. Also, before the 1973 decision to legalizing abortion, there were still 1 million abortions every year, and it had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation. . http://www.who.int...http://www.thecrimson.com...Women who are raped should always have the option for abortionThe general stats are that 9000 rape victimes will become pregnant each year. My opponent states that abortion should only be legal if the mother's life is at risk, but my opponent ignores women who were raped. If a woman living in a state where abortion was illegal, was raped, and then became pregnant. She would have two options, try for an unsafe abortion, where the risk to her life is much greater than a proper abortion, or give birth to the child. Let's consider she gives birth to the child, chances are, the child will not experience a happy childhood, given the fact that it was born to a mother who did not want it alive. If the child is given up for adoption, then the child will cost taxpayers much more money than a Medicaid abortion would. An abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy costs around $350 - $400. But providing for a child in an adoption centre for many years would cost much more. . http://www.lifenews.com...A woman has a right to control over her bodyA fetus cannot survive independant of a woman's body during the first trimester of pregnancy, as it is attached by the placenta and the umblicical cord, it's health depends on the health of the mother, and at this point, the fetus cannot be considered as a seperate lifeform. Abortion isn't equivalent to killing a newborn, because the fetus isn't capable of living an independant life. And I know that most people would bring up late term abortions, but there are stats that show 90% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy. And at this point, the fetus isn't capable of living as an independent being. . http://www.cdc.gov...Right to privacyA supreme court decision stated that the Right to Privacy, a constitutional human right, extends to the issue of abortion. The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose. The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. . http://www.pbs.org...I am a bit pressed for time, so I toss the ball back to my opponent to commence round 3, rebuttals.

790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00002-000

Thanks, Philo. =Pro case=FrameworkPro argues that the only concern that should govern policy is if that policy is "democratic". This is absurd--democracies are governments and as I articulated in my framework, governance is fundamentally a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Good governments are ones which make acceptable trade offs on this scale. Pro never explains why we should care if a democracy is "good" or not. It's vastly preferable to be ruled by a just king than a tyrannical president. It's vastly preferable to disenfranchise the 51% that would vote to exterminate the 49% even though this would be less democratic. Good governance is more important. The question then becomes if the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its violations of individual autonomy and as we will see, the answer is clearly no.I. TurnoutI do not concede that high voter turnout is inherently good. In Weimar Germany I would've preferred the Jews had higher turnout than members of the Nazi party did, regardless of what the actual opinion of the broader electorate was. We should value good government, not necessarily whatever happens to be the most "democratic" policy. Ironically, Pro argues that democracy means "all" the people are involved in the governing process and then immediately contradicts himself by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule. This is a huge blow for Pro because it destroys his argument about how democracy is a joke is we don't involve everyone. I don't want people who can't name the vice president to decide elections. Pro argues that if everyone doesn't vote a government doesn't have a mandate. There's no evidence Pro cited of governments under compulsory voting regimes having greater legitimacy than governments who don't force their citizens at gunpoint to endorse the system. Outside of nations with compulsory voting it's incredibly rare for the outright majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party but this has no effect on the governments ability to rule. Pros argument here also assumes a two party system--in a multi party system it would be incredibly unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. Are these governments any less legitimate? Pro certainly hasn't proven so. Considering that he brings it up later Pro clearly puts great stock in his mandate argument but I genuinely don't know how to reply because it's simply not warranted at all. Where are all challenges to sovereignty to these governments without mandates? The strongest language from Pro on this contention is that a plurality rather than a majority "somewhat" contradicts democracy. This timid, unassertive word choice is extremely telling--even Pro himself can't get himself to fully commit to this argument. Even if you buy that high turnout is good, state coercion is just not the best way to achieve this goal when we have options like tax credits. II. Accessibility to votingAbsolutely nothing in this contention is unique ad governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting. Making election days national holidays, extending early voting and same day registration are all discussed and worthy reforms, but compulsory voting is manufacturing a tornado to blow out a match. In fact, I can easily turn this argument: It IS hard to vote sometimes, but nothing in the resolution presumes that issue will be resolved. Pro only gets to assume that he succeeds in adding a legal obligation to vote, not that he makes it easier to vote. He's going to punish all of those hard working or disabled people he lauds. III. EducationPro has no evidence linking compulsory voting with a better educated electorate. Pro says that in a free society it's easy to ignore politics but thinks that forcing people to show up once every four years to randomly select candidates would turn us all into political junkies. In the United States, the election is all anybody hears about on the news for about two years before it even happens (this process has already begun). Social media, Internet access, and incessant news coverage make it almost impossible to not learn about politics through sheer osmosis. If people are tuning out, it's for a reason--probably because they realize that their vote doesn't matter in the slightest and have more important things to do in their lives than to listen to corporate shills lie. There's absolutely nothing in our modern world that stymies our natural curiosity, compulsory voting wouldn't make a difference. IV. ExtremismPros card on extremism refers specifically to primary elections[1]. Primary elections are the elections where party members select the slate of candidates for the general election--compulsory voting wouldn't solve for this because voting in primaries will *always* be voluntary unless Pro wants to argue that the government should force people to join political parties. The solutions suggested by the article, such as voting by mail and same day voter registration are far superior to Pros plan. I can't emphasize this enough, the article specifically lays the blame for polarization on primary elections so Pro gets no impact here--only solutions that increase *voluntary* turnout (like tax credits) would help here. Moreover, other than the weak democracy argument Pro doesn't explain why having politically motivated people voting more often is a bad thing, nor how having representatives with convictions ("extremists") is a bad thing. The article cites the example of Chris Murphy who won a low turnout primary and quickly became one of the most liberal senators and just assumes this is bad. Why is having one of the most liberal states in the country represented by a liberal a bad thing? Pro doesn't seem to understand that the moderates that are "unrepresented" voluntarily ceded their right to vote. They aren't underrepresented because they never seeked representation in the first place. The election of ideologues and extremists is often an act of protest. It's likely that compulsory voting would actually increase the probability of electing ideologues as leagues of potential voters who sit out elections out of disgust would now be forced to make a choice.=My case=CounterplanPro argues that my plan of tax credits would cost money. Actually it would grow the economy due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is a phenomenon whereby investment in certain sectors yields returns that are higher than the initial investment. So if a multiplier was 1.1, an investment of 1 billion would yield 1.1 billion. A paper for the United States Conference of Mayors[2] explains that the Earned Income Tax Credit for low to moderate income earners, a payment similar to my voting tax credit proposal, has a multiplier somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Pro claims that a tax credit would cost a lot of money. On the contrary, the credit would grow the economy by something between 1.5 and 2 times the money put in. This is a completely independent reason to vote Con. Even if you don't see any ethical or practical issue with compulsory voting, Pro doesn't grow the economy. I do. I. UndemocraticPro cites a poll showing Australians favor mandatory voting. He asks "[Why] should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?" It shouldn't! That's exactly the point! Somehow Pro entirely missed the crux of my argument, which is that the resolution should be rejected as it's better to let nations decide their own policies for themselves. This is the democratic position. Australia is not mine to rule, and while I think I could make convincing arguments to them as to why compulsory voting is bad policy, ultimately the decision is up to them. Pro, on the other hand, believes that nations he has never heard of and knows nothing about have a moral imperative to implement this policy even if it would be disastrous for them. Pro totally missed the point of my neocolonialism argument. The problem with his position is its blanket assumption--the issue is with this concept that nations we couldn't identify on a map are ours to rule. This type of hubris, that we can legislate just as well for anybody as we can for our own nations and that our policies have to work for them is the type of thinking that led to colonialism. Reject colonialism. Reject the resolution. Let nations decide their own policies for themselves. Despite his emphasis on democratic ideals, this autonomy is by far the more democratic position. II/III RightsPro does not argue that these rights don't exist, he just argues that people can just spoil their ballots. This isn't always true--it's unlikely, for example, that one could spoil their vote in electronic voting machines that wouldn't allow you to select more than one candidate. Moreover, many people wouldn't know how to spoil their votes or would believe it to be illegal ("Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google). To make sure that none of these rights are violated would require a concerted effort by the government to bring to the voters attention their ability to spoil their ballots, which defeats the purpose of forcing them to vote when they could just allow them to abstain instead. Moreover spoiling your ballot is not a true act of political neutrality--spoilt ballots are typically viewed as protest ballots[3]. The only truly neutral act is to not vote. Pro does not dispute that we should use the Sherbert Test: forcing people to violate their religion and hoping that they'll know to spoil their ballots is not the *least intrusive* means of achieving high turnout. Allowing them to abstain and encouraging voluntary voting through tax credits is.Pro removes legitimitate means of political expression and forces us all to give consent to the system. I'll discuss the rest of my case and crystallize the debate in the next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...

790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00005-000

IntroductionTo first know what ought to be the case in a democracy, we must know what is most democratic. It is an implicit assumption that, if one is to ask what a democracy ought to do, the correct answer would be that it ought to do what is most democratic. A good democracy is democratic, a bad democracy is undemocratic - any other properties a democracy may have are irrelevant to whether it is a good democracy, only whether it is democratic pertains to what it ought to be like.I presume thett3 accepts this observation, but if he disagrees, I would challenge him to provide an alternate criteria for a good democracy.So, the question of this debate is; would making voting compulsory to all eligible voters be something that is more democratic and better for the general welfare of this country? I will argue that the answer to this question is yes.Note that whenever I mention 'the people' or 'all the people' within the context of this debate, I extend the caveat that this does not mean those who are ineligible to vote, such as children or the mentally handicapped.A1 - Voter turnoutThe principle of a democratic government is that in which all the people are involved in either governing the country or voting for representatives to govern on their behalf. This is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines a democracy as:'Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly' (1)The emphasis is my own, and highlights the principle that democracy requires that all the people be involved in the governing process, either by voting or by actively developing legislature. In other words, it is more democratic if all the citizens of a country are democratically involved as opposed to only a certain amount of them. Of course this excludes children and the mentally handicapped, since these persons are, by their nature, unable to use sound judgement and hence would be unable to take responsibility for having a role in the governance of their country.Furthermore, a crucial principle of a legitimate democracy is that it must have a mandate. In other words, the government must be able to justify its authority. Yet if we have only around 50% of citizens actually voting, then it would usually follow that less than half of the population actually expressed their consent to be governed by the victorious political party. Let us say that a country has a 60% voter turnout and the winning party wins by a majority of 70%. This means that only 42% of the people actually voted for this government. But this raises the question of whether a government can legitimately have a mandate to rule if the majority do not explicitly support them. Democracy is defined as rule by the people, but if the majority of the people didn't actually choose to be governed by the goverment that now governs them, then this somewhat contradicts the definition of a democracy. Therefore, a strong mandate is necessary for a strong and valid democracy, and a strong mandate can only be achieved with a high voter turnout.Now, let us take two possible worlds:1. Our world, but voting is non-compulsory2. Our world, but voting is compulsoryWhich, then, would be more democratic? As I have elucidated above, the more democratic world is (all else being equal) that which has the most amount of its people involved. So which of the above worlds, 1 or 2, has the most amount of its people democratically involved?Many countries have systems in which voting is not compulsory, and in these countries the voter turnout is generally low. In the USA, the 2012 presidential election saw only 54.7% voter turnout (2)- meaning that nearly half of the voting age population were not involved in the democratic process. This phenomenon is very common in democratic countries with non-compulsory voting - rarely does it happen that the overwhelming majority of citizens decide to vote; the figure is commonly around 60% (3).Compare this to countries in which voting is compulsory, the prime example being Australia. Their voter turnout is consistently around 95% (4). In case anyone suspected that this was an anomaly, I only need to present the cases of Argentina and Brazil, which both have voter turnouts of around 80% (5)(6).The evidence lends strong credence to my hypothesis that making voting compulsory will improve voter turnout. Voter turnout is a valid analogy for political/democratic involvement because voting is the primary (and often only) manner in which the average citizen is able to express their political interest.Since making voting compulsory increases voter turnout, and a high voter turnout is more democratic than a lower one, then it follows that making voting compulsory is more conducive to a democratic society. In other words, democracies with compulsory voting are more democratic than countries without compulsory voting.A2 - Accessibility to votingIn systems where voting is not compulsory, the democratic process is skewed to give more political voice to those who are able bodied (7), those who haven't got strict employers and those with more spare time. These people are more likely to vote simply for logistical or convenience reasons, but there is no justification for a democracy to allow its system to be unfairly biased against groups of the population simply because of the state of their employment, where they live or their ability to get out the house.This problem would be solved by making voting compulsory, because people would have a significant motivation to vote (threat of punishment) regardless of convenience. Employers would also be obligated to make allowances for employees to vote. It is pertinent to mention that those in busy jobs are more likely to be unable to vote, simply due to the strains of living a busy life, whereas those who are unemployed will have plenty of time to vote. But surely it is the former that is contributing more to society by working hard? Therefore it is unjustified for the busy person to be less represented in parliament/congress than the person with lots of free time, since if anything it is a virtue to be busy and hard-working, certainly not something to be punished for.To summarise, a non-compulsory voting system allows for a biases to arise that arbitrarily discriminate against certain groups of people. Such a system is undemocratic when compared to a system in which these biases do not, or are less likely to, arise. It just so happens that the latter system requires that voting be compulsory.A3 - EducationMaking voting compulsory, as opposed to something that is optional, will most likely prompt more people to educate themselves and become more interested in politics. This is because, in a non-compulsory-voting system, it is very easy to ignore politics. One can easily live their lives paying no attention to politics, and this is made easy due to the fact that politics doesn't, at least explicitly, intrude on one's everyday life. It is very much a scenario of 'out of sight out of mind'.Yet if voting is compulsory, it is much harder to ignore politics because you are legally obligated to involve yourself. It stands to reason that this will create a demand for poltical education; after all, people are naturally curious and so it is natural that they would seek to learn more about what they could be voting for. Of course, this argument is theoretical, but nevertheless makes a lot of sense.But why should a democracy require voters to be educated? It all comes back to considerations of a government's mandate. If very few people were politically aware, then the government would have a weak mandate because it cannot be said with much confidence that the voters actually knew what they voted for. In contrast, an educated electorate gives the victorious government a strong mandate, because we can reasonably say that the majority of the voters did know who they were voting for.As explained earlier, a strong mandate is a requirement for a valid democracy. Hence because compulsory voting will incite the electorate to become more politically educated, and because an educated electorate is crucial for a valid democracy, compulsory voting is conducive to a valid democracy,A4 - ExtremismEvidence shows that those on the far-left and far-right of the politcal spectrum are more likely to vote than those with more moderate views (8). Regardless of the reasons for this fact, its truth is not conducive to a healthy democracy. This is because it means the composition of government is disproportionately controlled by non-moderates to a greater degree than moderates, despite the majority of people not identifying as non-moderate (9).The definition of a democracy is that which involves governance or representation of all people equally - if a democracy disproportionately represents non-moderates, a minority, then it cannot be said to be a good or valid democracy (given that a good democracy is loyal to its definition). If voting was compulsory, then moderates would be encouraged to vote - hence uprooting the disproportionate bias towards non-moderates and making the government more democratic.ConclusionI have presented four cogent arguments in favour of the resolution. All of them show why a compulsory voting system is more democratic than a non-compulsory voting system, and hence why the former ought to be the case in a democracy. This is because the criterion for the quality of a democracy is the degree to which it is democratic.___(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://pewrsr.ch...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly...(6) http://bit.ly...(7) http://bit.ly...(8) http://bit.ly... figure 4(9) http://pewrsr.ch...

f4e9fcc1-2019-04-18T14:49:34Z-00000-000

just because kids wear school uniforms doesn't mean their gonna get bullied on their clothes they can still get bullied,for glasses,hair,shoes,and if their poor or not so school uniforms will only solve one problem.Kids could also have growth sperts and their parents don't have the money to buy another one or wash

70068293-2019-04-18T11:42:41Z-00002-000

It's more than just a coincidence that these traits for teens are becoming more prominent as social media grows more popular", actually, if you look at the graphs for social media use and teen depression/suicides, there isn't much correlation to be seen. It can be concluded that teen depression is probably caused, for the most part, by a change of culture and people's mindsets rather than social media. "once my friend got Instagram and learned that people at our school had been spreading intense rumors about her in comments", the irony here is that you're trying to debunk my claim that schools can bring more depression than social media, then say that the people from their school were spreading the rumors. Don't criticize the medium, criticize the source of the problem. As for cyber-bullying being the problem that it is, fair enough, though again, it's much easier to be hurt by a real person than some anonymous figure you see online. Social media makes it easier to spread criticism, yes, but the difference between social media and other mediums? You can stop. You don't have to check Twitter every day, nobody's forcing you to check Instagram. As for people not wanting to confront people in person, you're out of your mind. I've experienced it many times, saying people don't want to confront you face-to-face is ignorant. And it's not like I'm small. I'm 6 feet tall and people are saying things to my face. As for the abductions you mentioned, this is shockingly rare, and, unless you're an idiot online, you're not getting abducted. When it comes to social media leading to poor grades, that's not the social media, that's people over-using it rather than being responsible. And, finally, your conclusion that social media should be taken away... WHAT THE FU--- *Breathes in* Socialization Helplines Entertainment Friends Education Spreading messages Being up to date Bringing about the rise of entire industries Causing unprecedented innovations And changing the entire world as we know it forever. Now, thanks to social media, SpaceX is getting people to Mars so we can change the next world. If you think getting rid of it is a good idea, then to be honest, I don't have a response.

70068293-2019-04-18T11:42:41Z-00003-000

First off, I'm sorry I will link it next time to make it more convenient for everyone. Secondly, yes I agree school could be a huge factor in the growth of these traits as well. But it's more than just a coincidence that these traits for teens are becoming more prominent as social media grows more popular. Bullying is a massive problem in our world today and often causes depression and worst of all suicide. Bullying is prominent in schools, I get what you are saying there, but with social media, others can go even more behind people's backs and spread rumors like never before. I have had first-hand experience with this, my friends don't often use social media. But once my friend got Instagram and learned that people at our school had been spreading intense rumors about her in comments. They knew that she had not been on it before, so they didn't even bother to hide it. This caused her anxiety to peak and she has only come down a little since. Her parents made her delete it within the next few days. Taking away social media will not get rid of this problem entirely, but it will take a huge portion of it out. Cyber-bullying is often underproportioned for what it can do, I am not blowing it out of proportion. Many people think very little of it compared to bullying within schools. Cyberbullying can do lasting harm to anyone who has had it happen to them. The article http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... doesn't just state what I have said before, that it can lead to depression, and suicide. But it also states that when things are posted on the internet, they never actually go away and can be reused by cyber bullies over and over again. This article also states that "Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online." Considering how many people there are out there in the world, this is a great number. Getting rid of social media will help prevent this. Considering how successful getting bullies to stop is at this point in our society, which is very rare trust me I know, I think this is one of our best options as of right now. Before social media came to be known, there was less bullying, still much more than there should be but less than right now. Social has helped to skyrocket these numbers, causing more and more death to teens. Self-esteem is not as simple as social media did it that is correct, I agree. But I'm not just saying that. With social media, it is even easier to spread VERY photoshopped photos of oneself or another person. Social media is not the one who did this, but the platforms are allowing these photos on and ruining self-esteems. I understand that people should be able to show what they want on their accounts, but if it's hurting someone should they really be allowed to? These issues could be easily seen in schools though it would take a lot more to do this. Yes, you might see a prettier girl in school than you and want to change, but really these people take just as long to get ready as you if you actually listen to them. But on social media, you can't always confirm this. Self-esteem issues, depression, and suicide will not be solved just by taking social media away, but it could be the first step in a long process. If we go down first to the bullies, then they may actually take more to social media and do what they can before they get caught. By taking away social media they will be limited to schools, and people tend not to want to confront someone face to face. Social media has brought many great things to the world, I have even gained some internet friends with it. But I have also found my share of horrible people who are simply looking for trouble. Websites have been able to prevent suicide a lot more, but we also have suicide hotlines for that. I am not saying I am not grateful to these websites for helping so many people, but if we did not have social media we would not need these websites as much. Social media has provided a lot more bad things to my friends who already had depression and anxiety than good. They have taken a downfall, leaving me and my other friends to try and help them back up, even coax them back into therapy. This is also why we have therapists, some people do not like the thought of talking to some random person. But these people are meant to help you, they have the training for it. Social movements have been helped a great deal by social media, but do you remember Martain Luther King JR and his marches? They did just fine without social media and caused one of the greatest social changes in history. In my history class we just recently watched the movie, Selma, about Martain Luther King JR and his work on the town of Selma. The things that they were able to accomplish there without the use of social media and just with their words and letters and announcements they sent out was amazing. Long-lasting friendships developed by social media are amazing, and I personally have two myself. But the option of talking with complete strangers brings about a whole different can of worms that I am going to lightly talk about. This website http://www.chroniclet.com... talks about just one of the dozens of abductions that have been linked with social media. Kids have been proven to feel better about sharing personal information online to people, even when they have been reminded hundreds of times not to. My friend also had a run in with this, nothing happened to her but something could have. One day she was playing around with an app called QuizUp! and suddenly this person messaged her saying "hi." she went to the profile and determined it was a guy (from the looks of it). She responded with a "hi?" already cautious. He asked how old she was (she was 14 at the time) and since she knew that she shouldn't give out the real age she said 13, she was going to show her parents that this guy was talking to her. He responded with "You're too young for me. I'm going to have to stop talking to you now or something bad will happen." Social media has helped to bring about many child abductions, even though some lasting friendships can be made. Another bad thing about social media is the fact that continuous use of it, like 12 hours a day, like every teen nowadays has been linked with lower GPA. Source: http://www.browndailyherald.com... As for your experience, I am sorry that you feel that you are on the cutting edge of depression. But this means that you should get help and medicine. Social media probably won't be able to "cure" you forever. My mother has depression as well, and her medicine does not cure her either, but it helps a great deal.

91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00001-000

http://abcnews.go.com... This article shows the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in schools. In closing, corporal punishment should be banned because it is ineffective and lowers students' IQ's. Other forms of punishment should be explored and tested. Good luck.

91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00002-000

You have supplied zero evidence. I, for now, will remakr that we can consider all your assertions of corporal punishment's ineffectiveness and detention's effectiveness false.You are not permitted to suddenly limit it to one nation unless it is in you rdebate guidelines, which it wasn't.

91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00004-000

NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK).Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests.It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children’s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...

6334eb40-2019-04-18T16:07:52Z-00004-000

I will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legal, because there should be no kind of legally recognized marriage, because government should not be involved in marriage. Good luck.

ca04a0bb-2019-04-18T18:11:13Z-00000-000

That was a good response, Con. However, my only real contort is this: the illegalization of alcohol has not, nor will it ever, stop people from using alcohol. It will simply create more problems. From your quoted link, it appears as if you are saying that the reason that alcohol is so dangerous is because so many people use it. I say, therefore, that prohibition will not stop the use, and therefore your justification for your wish to prohibit it is moot.

2045e80d-2019-04-18T19:47:53Z-00003-000

first off, Frontloading is part of the system, because states are doing it, but the system is allowing it to persist, which thus impends on the democratic value of a meaningful choice. Since the established procedure this year is a condensed primary season, it prevents individuals from a making a real meaningful choice as Stephen J. Wayne said, now onto my Iowa arguement. Jeff Greenfield. [Senior Political Correspondent, CBS News]. "The Brigadoon Complex: Where The Iowa Caucuses Went Wrong." Slate.com. December 31, 2007. http://www.slate.com.... Then there's the missing principle of "one person, one vote." More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court told the states they had to follow that rule in drawing legislative and congressional districts. The court told Georgia it had to dump its "county unit" rule for electing a governor—a process modeled on the Electoral College, that gave rural areas power out of all proportion to their populations. But the Iowa Democratic Party hasn't gotten the message. Rather than simply tabulating votes, its precinct caucuses calculate "state delegate equivalents," using a mind‐numbing formula based on past votes for Democratic candidates for president and governor. What this means, in effect, is that beyond a certain point, it doesn't matter if your candidate can turn out 200 or 10,000 participants in a particular precinct, because that precinct has only so much delegate‐purchasing power. It matters not just how many participants a candidate can turn out, but whether he can turn them out all over the place. A candidate who won a lot of the precincts narrowly would wind up winning a bigger portion of the delegates than a rival who piled up votes in one corner of Iowa—even if that corner yielded a higher overall number of supporters. It's all the disproportional representation of the Electoral College, in miniature. And that was the price for forming the Union, not a guide for running elections. What this means is that Iowa's system is a little different and impends on the one person one vote principle, it impends on political equality siad by Stephen J. Wayne, Now onto Super Delegates, he says, they have never went against the people, however, that is contrary, Hillary won Massachusetts, but senator Kennedy of that state is for Barack Obama, so they have gone against the people. Their are many examples, on is Alabama, where Obama won, but got one less delegate, which is the decider. The mere fact that super delegates are autonomous in the system is undemocratic, because it impends on political equality, by impending on the one vote one person idea. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.cnn.com... And then there is lobbying, because they are part of the system, and Barack Obama has given 690,000 dollars to 40% of his delegates, is not democratic, to have them in the system. Now onto Caucuses, he says, it doesn't stop anyone from voting, but that is contrary to his thoughts, it violates free and fair election codes according to the U.S. http://usinfo.state.gov... It violates the secret ballot, as defined voting by secret ballot ensures that an individual's choice of party or candidate cannot be used against him or her. two, it violates the absintee ballot, because they don't have one, allowing those who will not be able to vote on election day to cast their ballots prior to the election. One major example is in Nevada, http://www.washingtonpost.com.... Consider the Nevada caucuses set for this morning. Saturday is celebrated as the Sabbath by Jews and Seventh‐day Adventists. Synagogues hold Shabbat services on Saturday mornings and, perhaps more important, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from driving or doing other activity that could be viewed as work, which would include participating in caucuses. As the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, put it in a statement this week, "In a country that values religious liberty, no person should ever be forced to choose between practicing their religion and participating in their democracy." This is not a hypothetical problem; Nevada has one of the fastest‐growing Jewish populations in the country. Some people cannot vote on certain days, because of their reasons, and because caucuses are part of the system and elimnate this it is bad for universal suffrage. Disregard my opponents arguements, because, one they are not that important and two the reason why voter turnout is high, is not because of the system, but because of the people running in it. A african American and a woman are the reason for high turnout, look to the republican side, the Republican ticket is wrapped up already and it is a close race, but is that because of the system, no. The system is hurt in these ways to recap. It infringes on political equality with Caucuses and Iowa. It infringes on a meaningful choice with frontloading. It infringes on universal suffrage with caucuses and against free and fair elections. Super delegates have gone against the people, because they are autonomous it is against democratic values. Vote Aff

b818a298-2019-04-18T20:03:44Z-00002-000

Italia, its called a gym class! and health class! almost every school has one. In my high school we spend a large amount of time learning about how to prevent diseases. We also learn how to be wise about what medicines we decide to take. I have a lot of common sense and most americans do. so if some company decides not to give information about the topic or things along that line i'm going to do my research before i put something into my body that may not help. And all those companies who dont spend any time on the information on the disease or those sorts of things shouldnt your doctor be the one to give you the information. For you to say that they dont give enough information that may be true but people also should get the important information from their doctors. you know the ones who diagnose them in the first place. also lets please keep this debate knowledgeable and factual for the sake of the debate.

16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00002-000

First off, any books cited by Pro cannot be taken seriously. I don't have the books available and without an online reference, that can be checked by the voters, voter are not to consider Pro's books a reliable source. Every source that Pro cites, I am contesting as invalid. Therefore, voters please only consider Pro's sources valid if you have personally gone to the library and verified Pro's sources.CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successPro concedes that college is required for success. He says that it should not. He argues for an ideal scenario rather than the actual one. The essence of the debate is the Pro is saying that the government should end subsidies in education. He has the burden of proof to show why. How does he show this? By saying that college should not result in higher incomes. It doesn't matter if Pro thinks that. It is not true. He admits that it is not true. Ending educational subsidies will not make it so. I am not arguing about whether college should or should not result in higher incomes but rather that it does.C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsCollege, which my opponent admits is a path to success and higher income cannot be afforded by the majority of students. My opponent concedes this point as well.C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needPro does not address this contention. A dropped contention in a debate is considered to be conceded. Conclusion: Education should be subsidized.With all the premises true, the conclusion holds true as well.Summary of my casePro has conceded my entire case. The rebuttal that he provides merely voices his opinion that college should not lead to higher income and a successful career which is not the case. Pro's only standing argument now is that there should be less college education because it costs a lot and doesn't increase productivity. I agree that it costs a lot but argue that college is in fact beneficial. This is the reason I am defending subsidies. So, now the only point of disagreement is whether college is beneficial. If I can prove that it is, then I win the debate since my opponent has agreed with every other point that I made. My rebuttal to Pro's case below will prove this point.PRO'S CASER1) Human CapitalI must admit that Pro had an unorthodox way of arguing the resolution. His main argument for why education should not be subsidized is that education is not beneficial at all. So, let's get to the arguments that Pro makes in order to back up his claim.Pro's main argument seems to be that there is no transfer of skills, i.e. Calculus won't help you in a job that has nothing to do with Calculus. However, if your job does involve Calculus, then it will help you in your job. That part is fairly straightforward. Pro's entire argument on this point comes down to the point that college students should not take breadth courses since it doesn't "teach them how to think" and they won't use those skills in their job. I don't claim that a sociology major taking classes in Algebra "teaches them how to think." It merely provides them with knowledge of Algebra so that after graduation, the college students ends up well-rounded and knowledgeable in a wide variety of fields. In the future, if their job requires Algebra, they would be able to perform it. If they want to change careers or decide after graduation to persue a career that does require a fundamental knowledge of Math, it benefits them that way too. This is the reason why schools and to some extent colleges have basic requirements for graduation which often involve taking breadth classes. Pro is essentially arguing for vocational education which is not beneficial precisely because of the points I mentioned above: lack of options if you change your mind.Pro's next argument here is that classes that aren't exactly the same as your job are useless to your job. To back this up, he cites a study where students were made to do word problems. When the word was changed, Pro claims there was no evidence of transfer. This is completely unrelated to college classes. Classes are intended to provide knowledge of the subject matter, not specific transferable skills. This knowledge is used on the job. For example, someone who wants to be a Sociologist or psychologist must learn how to interact with people and understand human nature. This makes them more knowledgeable about the subject and better able to use this knowledge on the job. They don't need to do exact problems that they are doing on the job but need to learn the general content.Here is another example. If a student wants to be a web designer, they need to learn how to write HTML. They can learn this in college. After they graduate, the pages they might have to design may not be the exact same pages that they did for homework in college. However, without a fundamental understanding of HTML, they can't design web pages. Pro's source is absolutely irrelevant and have flawed methodology. I read the link he provided in round 1 (Detterman). In page 2, the author gives examples of how skills are not transferred. Essentially, the people conducting the study taught a mentally retarded women to give the correct amount of change to a cashier when she bought something. They then made her try it in the real world where she failed. From there they jumped to the conclusion that skills are not transferable.R2) SignallingPro's first paragraph argues that college students are smarter than high school students. I argued that college students are smarter and harder working because they go to college so obviously, we agree that college students are smarter and harder working, the question is why.In his second paragraph, Pro argues that this is not the case since general transfer of learning doesn't exist. However, all Pro has argued for so far was an isolated word problem which did not affect how students responded to different word problems. My argument is that college makes students more knowledgeable (has nothing to do with Pro's study) and it helps them meet deadlines and promotes hard work. Pro would have students working right away but if a job requires a degree in Sociology, how will the students get the required knowledge that is gained by a degree in Sociology?R3) Useful Education Pro says that for degrees like Sociology, investing money in it is not worth the cost. However, as I pointed out, the ideal scenario is that everyone goes to college. The government should be encouraging this. The way to do that is by offering subsidies.Comments on Voting:I usually don't make comments on voting but in this case, it is imperative that I make these comments while Pro still has the chance to respond to them.Conduct: If Pro wanted to argue that skills are not transferable, he should have made a resolution as such. I may or may not have accepted. However, he makes a resolution that educational subsidies should end. This while technically correct wastes his opponent's time debating something that may not be what they intended to debate. My intention for instance was to debate the benefits of subsidies, not argue about transferability of skills. However, I did take the time to argue it and negated Pro's arguments while providing better ones. Sources: Pro cites books. So, the reader is left wondering which page the studies are mentioned. The fact that Pro cited books should be enough to penalize him for sources since books cannot be verified. Only one of the claims he made is backed up by a study that can be accessed online.

16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00003-000

Re: Con’s ContentionsHis statistics about college graduates earning more are begging the question. I agree that college graduates earn more than non-graduates. The question is why—simply stating that they do earn more proves nothing.Con then argues that many people would not be able to go to college without subsidies. I agree. My whole argument is that there should be less college education, because it costs a lot (both directly, and in the form of the opportunity cost of not working during that time) and usually doesn’t increase productivity.C1: Human Capital Con misunderstands my studies. Perhaps my algebra and calculus examples weren’t clear. My point is that the only reason algebra helps with calculus is that its part of calculus—you need to know how to do algebra to do calculus. And calculus doesn’t help with anything that doesn’t explicitly involve calculus. Con claims that he isn’t arguing for general transfer of learning, and therefore my arguments don’t apply. But by ‘general transfer’, I don’t mean general education requirements. I mean anything that isn’t actually part of your job. Not related to your job, like how the study of human societies in sociology class might be sort of related to social work or teaching, but actually part of your job. Like, learning how to use Excel will make you more productive if your job requires using Excel. Taking classes provides students with a specific set of knowledge, and unless you use that knowledge in your job, it doesn’t make you more productive. Transfer of learning studies failing to find evidence of general transfer of learning doesn’t just mean that classes completely unrelated to your job are useless; it means that classes that aren’t pretty much exactly the same thing as your job are useless.In the experiments I’m citing, educational psychologists tried very hard to find general transfer of learning. They made the sets of problems as similar as possible to each other to make it easier for students to transfer their knowledge from one to the other. The problems in the study I mentioned last round are very similar—if people can apply their learning to different situations, then surely they’d be able to apply it to different problems as similar as estimating the area of a square and estimating the area of a triangle. But they didn’t. Even extraordinarily similar problems found no evidence of transfer—in a 1974 study, they trained students to do a word problem involving cannibals and missionaries. They then tested to see if that training transferred over to the exact same problem with the words ‘cannibals’ and ‘missionaries’ replaced with ‘jealous husbands’ and ‘wives’. They found no evidence of transfer—even though the subjects were not the average person, but college students! [1] The literature on Transfer of Learning theory shows that the only way to get better at X is to practice doing X. People can succeed in college classes because you’re tested on exactly what you studied for—but work in the real world is rarely exactly what you studied in college, so college classes usually won't make you more productive at work.C2: SignallingI don’t think I need any evidence to show that people that go to college are smarter and harder working than those that don’t—it’s self-evident to anyone who’s ever been to high school, and observed the differences between college-bound students and non-college-bound students firsthand. Think about what gets you into college—good test scores and grades. Are people with good test scores and grades just as smart and hard working as those without them? And, of course, people who go to college and graduate and probably smarter/harder-working than those that go to college but drop out. Anyway, even though I don’t think I should need it, I do have evidence. The average IQ for college graduates is 115—that is, the average college graduate is smarter than 5/6 of the population. [2] In addition, going to college shows conscientiousness—that is, being goal-oriented and forward looking (being low on conscientiousness means being more laid-back, present-oriented, and impulsive). Going to college for 4 years before getting the reward shows that someone is goal-oriented and forward looking. This is an important trait for employers—conscientious employees are more reliable, more motivated, harder working, and have lower rates of absenteeism. [3]Con argues that college causes students to be smarter and harder-working, which completely contradicts his earlier claim that he wasn’t arguing that general transfer of learning exists. College classes making someone smarter in general would be general transfer of learning. College may improve work ethic more than sitting around doing nothing, but it certainly doesn’t improve work ethic compared to actually having a job. Think about it—would you want to hire someone with a college degree that had never held a job? The average full-time college student puts in only 14 hours of studying per week—compared to 24 in 1961. [4] Hardly a way to build one’s work ethic. Coincidentally, the average return to education has sharply increased during that time—the opposite of what the human capital model would predict.C3: Useful EducationMy argument is that only education involving specific job training, like medical schools, significantly increases productivity. For other degrees, like sociology, the investment is not worth the cost. If someone won’t make enough to pay back an unsubsidized loan, then that just proves that that money would be better invested elsewhere. Saying that you need a subsidy for an investment to be profitable is admitting that the investment is a waste of money.[1] Reed, S.K., Earns, G.W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436-450.[2] http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...[3] Roberts, B.W.; Jackson, J.J.; Fayard, J.V.; Edmonds, G. & Meints, J (2009). "Chapter 25. Conscientiousness". In Mark R. Leary, & Rick H. Hoyle. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 257-273.[4] http://www.aei.org...

16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00004-000

I have 3 opening contentions to make which I listed below. If the contentions are true, then the conclusion is true as well. After that, I will refute my opponent's round 1 arguments.1) College is absolutely required for the vast majority of people who want to be successful. 2) The majority of people cannot afford to attend college unless subsidized loans are given. 3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill this need. Conclusion: Therefore, subsidies are required. OPENING CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successIt is a well-known fact that college graduates earn a lot more money than high-school graduates. According to the U. S. Census Bereau, high school graduates make approximately $28,000 a year while college graduates make approximately $51,000 a year, nearly twice as much [3]. There are of course exceptions but for the vast majority of people, going to college has a positive effect on their earnings potential. Now, the ideal scenario in this case would be for everyone to go to college since for the majority, college is required in order to be successful. C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsAccording to the US Department of Education, 2/3 of undergraduate students recieved financial aid [4]. This shows that the majority of students cannot afford the cost of college and require loans and financial aid in order to attend college. A student who just graduated from high-school will barely have enough money to afford college. Therefore, they must seek it from elsewhere. The options they have would be to either get federal aid, or have their parents finance their education. Most American families are unable to afford the huge amount of money required for college. According to the College board, it costs $105,000 for a 4 year degree in a private university and $7020 in a public university [5]. However, this is just the tuition fees. Students often have other living expenses. For instance, the total cost of 1 year at UC Berkeley is $32,000 if you live in a residence hall [6] or $120,000 for 4 years with all expenses included. Such staggering amounts are difficult to procure without subsidies. C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needThe primary problem with unsubsidized loans is that they charge interest from the time the money is first disbursed until it is paid in full. The interest is capitalized, meaning that you pay interest on any interest that has already accrued. One way to minimize how much interest accrues is to pay the interest as it accumulates [7]. Now a full-time college student cannot afford to pay interest on their loans since they will be busy with class and have living expenses, the need to buy textbooks, etc. With an unsubsidized loan, they are paying interest on money right from the minute they get the loan. If they do not immediately get a job right after graduating, it will snowball into a huge amount of money that is difficult to pay off. This severely discourages students from going to college. Since college is highly beneficial, it must be encouraged and the government must do what it can to increase the number of students going to college. This can be achieved by subsidizing education. Conclusion: Subsidies are needed. REBUTTALS R1) Human CapitalPro's argument here is that the knowledge learned in college does not translate to higher productivity. He specifically singles out Sociology as an example but I am assuming he is talking about Humanities in general. In any case, let's go with Sociology. Sociology is the study of people and how we interact with each other [1]. A degree in sociology helps students have a better understanding of human relationships. This helps them in a wide variety of careers that involve social interaction such as social workers, community affairs workers, consellors, and teachers [2]. My opponent cites studies to show that learning is highly specific. He claims that the studies show that learning algebra won't help you at a job that has nothing to do with Math. In essence, my opponent is arguing against general education requirements. The key here is that general education (breadth) requirements exist to give students knowledge of the topics at hand as opposed to prepare them to work in that particular field. A college student taking a sociology degree might have to take a math class. While his Sociology class might help at a future job, the Math class might not. However, breadth classes often have skills that are basic enough that they can be applied across various fields. Students also have a lot of choice in which classes they want to take. Pro's studies show that skills aren't transferable. But he is operating under the assumption that colleges claim that teach people how to think. Since I haven't made that argument and am arguing instead that classes in a student's major are actually useful, the studies have limited value. Pro's studies are pre-emptive to arguments that I did not make and are therefore irrelevant. R2) SignallingPro says that the reason college graduates earn more is that college is a signal, and it signals that the graduate has qualities that the employer is looking for. Of course I won't argue with the point that a college degree is a signal. My argument is that college is not just a signal, but much more that that; because it offers many other skills that can be used in the real world such as the ones I mentioned in R1 regarding sociology. My opponent says that people that go to college tend to be smarter and harder-working than those that don’t. However, he offers no evidence to prove this point. It is just as likely that people who go to college are smarter and harder working because they go to college and have learned to take on the load of a college degree, participate in extra-curicular activities, and meet deadlines. R3) Useful Education Pro says that degrees that are useful need not be subsidized. However, there are many degrees like Sociology which are useful and pay a lot more than what high school grads are paid but may not be enough to cover the cost of unsubsidized loans. Pro divides the categories into "useful" and "not useful" but it is not a dichotomy. There is a wide range of usefullness to a college degree, from just a little more financially beneficial than high school to many times as much depending on the degree, and the student in question. So, a sociology major might earn a lot more by going to college but it may not be enough to cover unsubsidized loans. Sources[1] . http://sociology.uoregon.edu...[2] . http://www.soc.cornell.edu...[3] . http://howtoedu.org...[4] . http://nces.ed.gov...[5] . http://www.collegesurfing.com...[6] . http://students.berkeley.edu...[7] . http://www.csus.edu...

16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00005-000

C1: Human Capital?The idea behind subsidizing education is that since education improves human capital (makes people more productive), subsidies will pay for themselves. We’ve all heard the statistic that college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than non-graduates. But is that income differential caused by the education? It’s hard to believe the knowledge learned at college directly translates into higher productivity—very little learned in school has anything to do with real world work. Some things learned in school obviously translate into higher productivity—basic literacy, numeracy, and computer skills, for example. But it’s hard to believe that anyone uses the skills they learned in a Sociology class in their job. College isn’t completely useless of course, but the majority of classes have no application in the real world.Ah, but educators usually don’t claim that the stuff they teach will ever be used in the “real world.” They’re supposedly teaching you how to think—by learning math and literature, you’ll be better at learning other, work-related things, and therefore be more productive. It turns out educational psychologists have tried to test and measure this theory—the literature on the subject is called ‘transfer of learning theory.’ And they found that your teachers were wrong, and that learning is highly specific. There is specific transfer of learning—learning algebra will help you learn calculus. But there is no empirical evidence of general transfer of learning—learning calculus won’t help you be more productive at a job that has nothing to do with math. [1] Studies on this subject date back to E.L. Thorndike’s 1901 study, where "Subjects estimated the area of rectangles between 10 and 100 sq cm...After sufficient practice to produce improvement (1,000 to 2,000 trials) on the original series, subjects got two test series. The first test series consisted of rectangles between 20 and 90 sq cm not included in the original training series. The second test series consisted of shapes other than rectangles, like triangles and circles. On the second test series, errors after training were about 90% as large as errors before training. Thorndike and Woodworth concluded that there was practically no improvement on the general skill level of judging the area of figures." [1] In addition, “Since the classic Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) experiment, there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments reaffirming the same point.” [1] A review of these studies from Thorndike to the present found that while there was evidence of ‘near’ transfer (specific transfer, like algebra helping with calculus), "there has been no positive evidence of general transfer besides a few highly questionable studies." [2] C2: SignallingBut then why do college graduates earn more than non-graduates? Part of the reason is that college graduates were already more productive than non-graduates before they went to college. People that go to college tend to be smarter and harder-working than those that don’t—so they would probably earn more even if there was no such thing as college.But that can’t be the whole answer. If it was, smart kids could skip college and expect to earn just as much as if they went. That might be the case for a few exceptional people—Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc, but for most people, it likely isn’t true. The other part of the answer is that a degree is a signal. It signals traits that employers value—intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity. Someone without a degree could have those traits, and someone with a degree could lack them, but on average, people with degrees are smart, conscientious, conformists—people who will be good workers. If employers require a college degree for a job, they will get applicants who are, on average, better workers, and will be less likely to have wasted money hiring someone who turns out to be a bad worker. If this is true, then the case for subsidizing education falls apart. Improvements in human capital have social benefits, but signaling doesn’t. Signaling benefits the person with the signal at the expense of everyone else competing for that job—it doesn’t benefit society overall. The billions spent subsidizing education are thus wasted—in addition to the opportunity costs of the students going to college when they could have been doing productive work instead.C3: Useful EducationWhile I think most of school is socially useless signaling, obviously some education is actually useful. Medical schools teach the skills necessary to be a doctor, for example. But that doesn’t mean these things should be subsidized. If something is actually useful, then it doesn’t need to be subsidized—the monetary return on getting that degree is enough. People that can’t afford medical school can take out loans and pay them back with the higher income medical school will help them get. People that can’t afford to get Sociology degrees probably won’t get loans without the government being involved, since private lenders would be unwilling to lend to someone who couldn’t pay them back.[1] Detterman, D.K. (1993) 'The case for the prosecution: transfer as an epiphenomenon', in D.K. Detterman and R.J. Sternberg (eds) Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction, Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation.http://cms.educ.ttu.edu...[2] Singley, M.K., & Anderson, J.R. (1989). The Transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00006-000

Since my opponent did not specifically define any terms, I would like to note that my primary arguments will be in defence of financial aid to college students, grants, loans, scholarships and so on.

8484ca40-2019-04-18T18:20:32Z-00004-000

I feel that all students in high school shoud be required to take a financial literacy course, so they will have a clue what they are talking about when it comes time to join a bank, or take out a loan etc.

35d3974b-2019-04-18T17:32:23Z-00000-000

0. FrameworkTo start, even if framework and semantics were the same thing, Pro never posted any rule against semantics.But here's the deal: In Round Two, Pro argued what could be considered disadvantages for both the slightly and extremely overweight. In Round Three it seemed that many of his arguments were based only on the extreme cases of fatties. This is why I argued framework: to set straight the original view of what a fatty was. Because I never agreed in this debate that fatties were only limited to those who could jump in the air and get stuckIt's not semantics, it's just a thought of perspective. But it's bad conduct to add a new argument in a non-rebuttal round? Not in any debate event that I know of. However, Pro presents new evidence in Round 4, the rebuttal, where one should only sum up what has been argued.Is that good conduct? Is declaring bad conduct in bold print just so noobs give you the extra point good conduct? Is not arguing Framework because you basically just think it's stupid good conduct? So should my opponent really be so quick to talk about poor conduct in this debate?..................................... It's completely worth arguing that fatties are not limited to just people like my grandma. And Pro conceding it just because he thinks it's stupid it no better conduct than Framework itself. 1. SwimmingA. This is what I was referring to in Framework. Adding new evidence in the last round is not a Kosher thing in the debate world. The rebuttal round is for summaries.Beyond that, it's a common person fact that redheads have lighter pigments in their skin that causes their burns to be more painful and severe. Gingers feel pain, fat people feel embarrassment.Pain > Embarrassment.B. The picture I presented was at least orbiting around the average ginger. The picture Pro presented was an extreme case of a fat person. It's a fine example of why Framework is important, but Pro concedes anything to do with Framework because I guess he's too cool for it.C. In South Dakota where civilization is scarce, there are four years of middle school science. One of them, in which, is advanced anatomy and meteorology. Arguing credentials is no way to dodge fact.D. I thought we weren't going to argue outrageous things like cyborgs. That was the first rule pro set, and then he immediately accused me of being a robot. What. You're a silly seal. 2. PreggersA. My opponent argues that he has a logical opinion, but does not back up why his opinion is more logical than someone else's. However, Chris Farley made far more money than my opponent does, so he should absolutely be trusted more as a professional.B. The top one was pregnant; the bottom one was fat. I really don't understand how bad Pro's vision/standards could be. He concedes this because we all know which one is pregnant, and we all know that there is a vast difference.My opponent has not at all met his burden of proof that fat people look pregnant. 3. I Told You About the Stairs BroA. There's no higher percentage of effort than 100%. Therefore FAP can't even math, therefore FAP doesn't know what the FAP they're talking about.President Obama is the one who implemented the mandated shoes in the first place. Our nation can't afford jet packs right now. B. My opponent concedes once again because who needs Framework when you have swag. Still, the average fat person with soled shoes has a perfectly fine time climbing stairs. Gingers do not.4. Lol He Said Fart A. My opponent is putting a percent in front of everything he's saying and hoping it will make his arguments any more credible.The truth is, my four year studies of the flatulent sciences far outweigh his three. In my expert knowledge, I can tell you that fat farts are the single healthiest thing for our atmosphere.B. Now that I talk about my scientific experience, I come to realize that Pro also conceded point B. And it actually had nothing to do with Framework.5. I Like 'Em ChunkyA. Only twelve Nobel prizes? In science? That's such a fake category. That's silly. You're still a seal. Truly, Pro did not legitimately prove that anyone likes gingers above fat people. Burden of proof not met.B. Well in that case, Pro also conceded Rupert Grint.C. He barely gave a sass argument so I will barely give one as well. Don't sass me bro.6. Physical ActivityFootball: "I'm not saying they can't do it". If they can do it, then they have a place in physical activity. Point proven.Golf: My opponent says that it's proven that a fat person can't operate a golf cart. Really? Because he never presented that in any argument from what I can remember.Baseball: "I'm not saying they can't do it." Then once again we've proven that fat people have a place in physical activity.Basketball: More new evidence, more "percentages", more anger conveyed in bold print. Most black people can't jump over a human. Pro never proved otherwise.Sumos: From what has been shown, the average fat person is equally as able in sport as the next guy. Meaning fat people are if anything equally as advantaged as gingers, meaning Pro's resolution is still false.B. Pro was tired so he said "screw it" and didn't argue framework at all.Bottom line: = is not >.7. NoticeabilityA. Pro is very confused. Buying pillows hurts the individual and helps greedy companies. It's much better for the economy for a fat guy to do his unique fat pranks. Only a fat person can pull them off, making noticeability not a problem.B. There is one Osama Bin Laden. You can't argue otherwise. You can't. You can't. Fat people do just fine in non-combat positions in the military. They can serve their country, even if they are noticeable. Therefore, noticeabilty does not make a fatty worse off. C. There's no control. None. As a ginger, I can guarantee it. We cannot control our fire, and it is arrogant to think that we can.It Sucks to be a Ginger and Here's Why1. Firebending?Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm. Once again I thought for sure Pro said we wouldn't argue outrageous things. Our fire powers are not within our own control.No firebenders on The Last Airbender are gingers. None.And I wonder why I didn't argue that every firebender didn't dye their hair. Not because what Pro said about that is completely irrational or anything...2. Combusken Yes, Pro did forfeit this. The good does not outweigh the bad. We are just as likely to kill our friends as we are to kill our enemies. 3. Cyborgs/EmotionsI still don't understand how Pro could have so easily broken his only rule about outrageous arguments.No Emotions = No soul.At no point does that mean we are robots.Once again, we feel no happiness, therefore our lives inevitably suck worse.4. Getting Jiggy With ItMaking profit < Getting my @ss kicked. My opponent was likely too tired to argue at this point, making his argument sadly weak.5. PotA. Don't try to cover this up. You're a racist carp, you seal.B. No, rainbows have no end. It's fact.C. Nice try, but I call photoshop.Why Con Wins:PRO IN ROUND 1:" No going EMEMGERD FAT PEOPLE ARE FLYING ALIENSFRFROM MARZ THEREFORE THEY ARE BETTER." Or anything like that! Let's keep it real bro."PRO IN ROUND 4:"Gingers have fire powers, are awesome robotic cyborgs, work for the government, and are secretly taking over the world!"... -Wouldn't argue Framework because he thought it was dumb.- Put a percentage in front of anything he couldn't back of- Very, Very, Racist. In the end, gingers have no souls, meaning no happiness, meaning they physically cannot be better off than anyone at all, let a lone fatties. And Morgan Freeman approves. Good game, Pro. It was fun :D

35d3974b-2019-04-18T17:32:23Z-00001-000

Framework Really? Wild Snorlax is not impressed with your argument. My opponent at this point is just trying to play semantics with me. Luckily this is a troll debate and there really are no “definitions” so my opponent can’t just make a definition of fatty right now. Especially because this is my last round and that would be very poor conduct Con. We have both agreed on the same “perspective” over what a fatty is over the last 2 rounds. Anyways, overweight does not equal fatty. Fatty is its own definition in this debate and it is anyone that is noticeably fat and there has been an unspoken agreement over that since I first posted my opening argument and you responded with no objections. I will be ignoring everything marked with frame work as if they weren’t there. Swimming Actually 100% of people do get sunburned! Even African Americans! . http://www.scandalousbeautyonline.com... . http://jacksonville.com... . http://www.answerbag.com... I apologize to the audience; My opponent has been known throughout this debate to completely make up organizations and even so called ‘facts” hasn’t he? 96% < 100% And yes, yes I am a seal. I do not see how that is relevant. But yes I am. The picture is for the audience to compare to your own for their own decision :D Considering there are only 3 total years of middle school my opponent must have repeated a year and re-learned the same thing! Therefore we have the same middle school knowledge on the subject! My opponent never responded to the fact that he is working for the R. C. G. A. I believe he is trying to avoid the topic because the organization is so top secret… Yeah, He definitely has some top secret knowledge that he got from working there. I am quite silly aren’t I? Pregnancy A. A logical opinion mind you! Anyways, are you really going to trust this mans opinion? B. No concession here! All arguments and rebuttals have been based purely off opinion! Even my opponent cannot prove which one is really pregnant and I think it is a mystery none of us will ever know. Difference between a fat woman and a pregnant woman: One is pregnant. That good enough for you? C. <_< >_> Stairs A. Ha! FAP does not have the slightest bias! It literally focuses and puts 100^Infinity% of its effort into Fat American People and every possible thing anyone can every know anything about fat people. Like ermegerd that’s a lot of facts. We can disregard MASTURBATION because only 33% of its efforts focus on fat people whereas the other 66% focuses on anorexia and bulimia! 9000 < 4,454,954.3 Fat people suffer more. Anyways, if the government was such a racist bitch against black people and gingers they could improve those government mandated shoes! This can easily be done by putting mini jet packs on the side of your shoe in order to lift you up off the ground and propel you forward at your will. Our president approves! Fat People and Farting A. *Gasp* You just single handedly pissed off 87% of the fat population. This is where you are wrong! Fat people simply do not have the ability to control when they pass gas because their chub cuts off their blood flow making them feel numb and not able to control whether they fart or not! Fat people cannot control their farts and as a result they are smelly people and are often thought as unsanitary against their will! What my opponent does not realize is that he is only partly correct. Yes, fat people farting can help us, but it happens far less than the amount of chemical explosions that happen in our atmosphere. 78% of fat farts cause chemical explosions. The other 22% protects us from Sun radiation! In addition, the chemical explosions cause sun radiation to leak through three times over the amount that the successful farts (ones that do not explode) help protect against sun radiation! Fat People and Being Attractive A. Actually they have been awarded the Nobel Prize 12 times for the amount of scientific research, polls, public opinion, and the amount of hard work they do to help America judge others! Significant? I think yes. Fact is, the majority of people prefer gingers over fat people. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn’t think I had to debate whether all of those people were sexy or not because of my statistics. Conceding to them is irrelevant because I have already proven them unimportant. Also, that’s Rupert Grint. I said Ron Weasely you muther facker. BIG DIFFERENCE. Sure, but can a fat sassy chick show a little fire? I don’t think so. ;D Physical Activity Football: But it really really helps. Like really. Again, a good team needs a versatile line man. I’m not saying they can’t do it. I’m just saying they wouldn’t be nearly as good as they should be! Golf: Psh, it’s been proven that fat people can’t operate a golf cart. Baseball: Again, I’m not saying they can’t do it. I’m just saying they would be bad at it. Basketball: It’s not racist if it is true and it is undeniable that 95% of all black people and 99.9% of all basketball playing black people can jump like really freakin high. Sumo Wrestling: Ah okay, so then fat people are good at one sport out of like, a lot. Gingers can be good at every sport, except Sumo wrestling. I think Gingers win this. No, I know gingers can do more physical activity than fat people. I know. Noticeabilty Hmm, obviously your middle school social studies classes didn’t pay off very well! More money into the economy = faster $$$ for everyone! A. This means that skinny people not only help the economy, but they can also pull pranks that are meant for skinny people and fat people! B. Nah, every terrorist out there is an Osama Binladen therefore there are multiple Osama Binladens. Also, that is completely false! The bigger you are the slower you are and you have a more likely chance to get shot due to your size! Nu-uh, ain’t nobody got time for a fat guy in the military. C. No way. There is far too much control in his face and hands for that to be “spontaneous”. I get the feeling my opponent may have a certain biasness to his own kind. >_> ERMEGERD AWESOME GINGERS OF FIERY CYBORG AWESOMNESS! !! Fire Bending Con actually concedes to the fact that he is a fire bender! Obviously he hasn’t been training too hard because he does not have full control over his fire bending skills (Remember how hard it is to master control over that? ) and falsely claims that no fire benders can control their flames! That is a ludicrous statement! Just because you aren’t a master yet, doesn’t mean you have to bring everyone else down, Okay? My opponent concedes that all of the fire benders did indeed dye their hair! No surprise is it? Combustion I did not concede! I did name one thing that is good about combustion! Which would be that if you are getting hot headed it’s most likely because of something you hate so you’re probably want to destroy it anyways! Gingers are robots of Awesomess Yeah I can. I can because you are a robot! This isn’t outrageous because it’s true. Let me explain again why I have come to this conclusion: No Soul = No Emotions = Robot Con concedes that he is indeed a robot of awesomeness. Irish Jig Like combustion, I did still name a reason why it could be good! Make some profit by allowing people to beat you up for money after doing an Irish Jig! Pot of Gold Whoops, that’s what I meant to put. I accidently had a massive typo. Rainbows do indeed have an end! I also have discriminating proof about this and a picture of MassiveDump finding the pot of gold. Conclusion Let’s face it everyone! Con has conceded or given weak arguments to the majority of everything I posted! Gingers have better lives than fatties. That is all fact, no opinion. Gingers have fire powers, are awesome robotic cyborgs, work for the government, and are secretly taking over the world! All fat people have is Mcdonalds.

add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00001-000

But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child "A" said "Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)

87f8f51c-2019-04-18T13:47:32Z-00003-000

I am a student and I refuse to be attacked endlessly without being able to fight back I will not cower in a corner. Would you want your kid to be attacked and when he finally pushed the kid off get suspended and what for the other kid to get suspension and attack you for snitching when he gets back.

f064827a-2019-04-18T16:48:15Z-00005-000

Thank You CON! 1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Not everyone believes in god in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. I don't think my opponent will argue that no atheists exists in America, but I'll provide a source either way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5% of Americans are atheists. As for the second class citizen, the definition is here: http://dictionary.reference.com... "A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration." I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem.This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State."Separation of Church and State: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"-Jefferson.http://www.loc.gov.........The actual rule:"The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion" http://dictionary.reference.com... By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.

b1f4c28-2019-04-18T17:48:48Z-00005-000

Should Cell phones be allowed in schools

c72ee19b-2019-04-18T13:33:16Z-00003-000

I would firstly like to state my framework for this debate, and then move on to state my contentions for this debate. Framework: The affirmation states "Adopt stricter gun control laws. " This means that the proposition only needs to prove one gun law that should be stricter in order to win this debate. C1: Solves The Root Of The Problem One of the roots of the problem for gun violence are background checks. The current laws for background checks are ineffective, allowing criminals to get there hands on weapons. According to Everytown, Federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks. That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a check"most often online or at gun shows through unlicensed "private sellers. " Felons, domestic abusers, seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people know about this loophole, and they exploit it every day. It"s like having two lines at the airport"one with security, and one without. And criminals get to choose. We also need to make sure the background check database is complete. States and federal agencies have failed to send hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. The Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 32 people, was banned from buying guns. But he passed a background check because his records never made it into the system. As you can see, by closing simple loopholes in the law, like making private sellers also have to give background checks and entering information in databases faster, criminals and the mentally ill cannot get access to guns, making tragedies over before they even happen. C2: Reduces Homicides And Suicides My opponent and I both know that there are intentional killings with guns. However, what many people do not know is that there are unintentional killings as well. According to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted. 89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents" absence. 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills themselves could be prevented by automatic child proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired. Simple solutions like these could have prevented over 270,237 lives in the last decade. This means that we should adopt these simple laws to save lots of lives in the future. C3: Reduces Societal Costs The effects of gun violence not only cause a loss of lives, but also cost a lot of money to families and the federal government. Causing restrictions, would make spending money at a minimum. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2015, gun violence cost each person in the United States roughly $564 and the US government $5.5 billion in lost tax revenue; $4.7 billion in court costs; $1.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs; $180 million in mental health care for victims; $224 million in insurance claims processing; and $133 million for law enforcement and medic response to shooting injuries. There were also 36,341 emergency room visits and 25,024 hospitalizations for gun injuries, costing an estimated $6.3 million. 84% of those injured by firearms are uninsured, leaving taxpayers responsible for most of those bills through programs like Medicaid. As you can see, there are so many effects of gun violence that can cost money. If we take simple precautions like closing loopholes and making sure guns are locked up at all times, then there would be no money spent on this, leaving more money to spend on other things.

1ec27540-2019-04-18T14:05:01Z-00004-000

My Response: Con's first paragraph talks about the Energy Pyramid, which says Species A (Plant) has 100% energy, Species B (Herbivore) has 10% energy, Species C (Animal which eats Species B) has 1% energy, etc. In the Pyramid, we are "Species C", but we don't need to go on a veggie diet because the lack of energy. I'm not even sure there's a heavy lack of energy in the first place. Con's 2nd paragraph talks about increase and decrease in population? Where did that come from? Nowhere did anyone bring up a population declining or increasing. Actually, now that I think about it. .. none of this is relevant to the environment being harmed, which is the resolution, isn't it? Let's just move on. Rebuttal: "If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%. " Can you back this up? How are we emitting carbon dioxide when eating meat? Anyways, a source is nessicary here. Also, Pro needs to clarify if our bodies are exhaling more carbon dioxide, or deforesting which releases smoke into the air, as he talks about later on. "Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest. " I thought this debate was about becoming a vegetarian, not deforestation. Pro's argument is not really supporting the resolution of "Eating Meat harms the Environment". Sure, we're making farms on that land, but it's not eating the meat which is harming the forest, it's destroying the forest that's harming the environment. As for resource consumption, I would like a source as well. "12 times as much land" seems like an awful lot, maybe too much? I don't think a meat factory takes up that much space. Actually, how much space does it take? It's not that much if farms take up 1 to 5 kilometers. Anyways, source is required. Anyways, now that my rebuttal is done, I currently have no arguments myself. Let's fix that, shall we? (I concede the food chain didn't help my case at all. ) Us humans aren't the only ones eating other animals. Tigers, Alligators, Lions, Hawks, Sharks, and Wolves are all carnivores; they only eat meat! These animals, as well as the human race, ate meat all of their lives. And yet, I assert that this does not affect the environment in the slightest, other than we're eating other animals. You may be thinking "But they're Lions, Sharks, Hawks. .. How does that relate to us humans? " Answer: The resolution is "Eating Meat is Harmful to the World". I don't see how me eating beef is much different than a Lion eating a cow. We're both eating a cow. Albeit I'm eating a cooked cow, but does this change anything? We've eaten meat all our lives, yet how has it harmed anybody, except the poor cow I ate? Now, the (other) big question is: "Does me eating McDonalds harm the Amazon forest? " I see not how saying 'yes' to that question makes sense. I eat a Double Cheeseburger, in my room. The Amazon isn't affected at all. Manufacturing the meat, however, would indeed release smoke, carbon dioxide, into the air. But that's not EATING the meat, is it? Conclusion: Pro might have the resolution mixed up. He's talking about the manufacturing of the meat which harms the environment. That's not eating the meat. I've shown that eating the meat a) isn't manufacturing it, and b) it doesn't harm the environment. And with that done and said, let's hear what Pro has to say!

3a5d6f0-2019-04-18T18:05:01Z-00002-000

I would like to point out that the use of PED's does not guarantee a win. One still has to train and work out to become good at their sport. Using Lance Armstrong, do we know for a fact that 2nd place wasn't cheating? Third? Is everyone tested, or only the winner? Assuming only Armstrong was cheating, it is amazing that he only managed to win in 2003, in the middle of his streak, by a mere 61 seconds, and came in third in 2009 over five minutes behind first place, and over a minute behind second. "Juicing" does not mean you will win. . http://www.bikeraceinfo.com... Even if PED's are expressly forbidden in sports (the governing body outlaws them), why should cheating in this capacity result in sanctions, but not others? Taking a football player out of the game with a late hit might be cheating, but does it result in the team losing the game? No, it results in a fine. Why is it if I use a drug to promote muscle growth (steroids), which only has the desired effect if I put in effort, illegal, but other items that promote performance enhancing (like Gatorade) are allowed? If one team uses Gatorade, and another uses an untested electrolyte replenisher, is one cheating? Did the Gators retroactively lose the Orange Bowl in 1966, because they had Gatorade (a secret formula the school invented the year before) and the other team didn't? . http://www.gatorade.com...

3fc36285-2019-04-18T18:54:17Z-00005-000

i think its wrong to denay education to illegal immagrants

324c7f20-2019-04-18T19:16:13Z-00003-000

To accommodate this change in the structure of this debate, I ask that Pro not post an argument in the last round to keep both sides even. With that said, let this debate begin! I negate; resolved: public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. I shall define standardized exit exams (SEEs) as the US Department of Education does, "an educational accountability technique employed to ascertain if progress and base standards are being met by school districts through the use of a high stakes test in compliance to federal standards." This definition should be preferred, as the US government is ultimately the entity that is acting. My value will be progressive post-industrialism (P P-I) which is, as David Bell writes "the evolution of industrialist societies into more technologically advanced and culturally progressed civilizations dedicated to humanist principles of justice and human dignity". This is best achieved through the criterion accountability, because as Bell continues "it is only through accountable educational systems teaching the basic prerequisite subjects required to communicate such as language and math can we solve for violations of human worth and injustice worldwide." By focusing society on the individual, diversity, and justice, P P-I creates strong and fair societies. Professor Gosta Esping-Andersen writes about P P-I societies. " The benefits of striving towards the post-industrial value system in quality of education is seen in everyday life in those nations that have achieved it. Quality of health care for the disabled, poor, and old is significantly higher. The base level of education, especially in language ensures a quality of communication that ensures we recognize each other as individuals working together as opposed to working against each other. Empirical studies in Norway and Denmark show the level of education directly effects the likelihood of individuals showing aggression towards other racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic subgroups because of a greater understanding of the interconnectivity of the world." C1: Exit Exams Create A Progressive Post-Industrialist Society The American economy is faltering on the global scale because of inadequacies in the educational system. The National Education Association writes, "Domestic and international economies have shifted, and a new base of skills are required for the workforce. In the last 10 years over 3 million manufacturing jobs were lost while 15 million service sector jobs were created. These new jobs required basic math and English levels that were found to be lacking in many American high school graduates." Society's switch from a manufacturing to service-based economy requires us to dramatically change our educational objectives. Manufacturing jobs only need a 6th grade English, and 4th grade math level. In contrast, the service sector requires laborers to have an 8th grade mastery in both. The current educational system simply cannot support the economy. The solution is quite simple, as Gosta Esping-Andersen elaborates. "The standard of education in post-industrialist societies in Europe are what ensure their economic and social survival. The rigorous testing taken by those exiting the secondary education system ensure that the needed market skills are present within the student." Exit exams ensure that students are adequately equipped for the workforce, and create stable economies. This is clearly seen in strong European nations with rigorous exams. C2: Only high-stakes exams can achieve any form of accountability. Barry and Finley (2009) write, "Due to the lack of consequences related to low-stakes tests, student performance has been found to be lower in low-stakes testing than in high stakes conditions, which leads to poor instrument refinement decisions. The low motivation of low-stakes testing increases the amount of students using rapid guessing. Items that were known to be low difficulty appeared more difficult and discriminating, lowering the quality and validity of the tests overall." Only when students apply themselves can we obtain an accurate measurement of their of their ability and ensure accountability. This has twofold impacts – first, students who graduate absolutely have the abilities they need. Second, teachers and administrators can utilize these data to improve the system. As I have shown through my case, it is only by negating, through a high stakes testing methodology can we ever ensure social and economic stability which is the cornerstone of social progress and rights. Without exit exams we cannot reach the level of progress post-industrialist societies have reached in terms of competitiveness in the world market and in social cohesion by the valuing of human worth. These unique and powerful benefits provide a clear reason to vote for the negative. Let's move to the Aff side. Regarding the value debate, we need to prefer P P-I. We both value societal benefit, but the Neg gives a clear path towards social progress. The Aff doesn't give you a bright line to determine where progress has been achieved and where it hasn't. Aff's criterion only weakly links to his value. His arguments for pragmatism actually fail, because in the end he is looking for a 'valued diploma'. On the Aff side, he has no way to achieve anything more than a subjective diploma. The Neg, on the other hand can clearly show what a diploma entails. Furthermore, we can look to my definition and immediately see a reason to vote Neg. A SEE by definition meets the federal, not state standard. If we want to completely standardize an SEE, it needs to be on the national level. The Aff cannot bind the Neg to support only state level exams. The Neg determines Neg arguments, not the other way. @ C1 The Negative value system immediately does away with many of these harms. If we implement a P P-I exam (more on that later), these harms actually go away! Remember the Esping-Andersen and Bell cards I presented earlier. A move to a P P-I society would actually reduce dropouts by placing more emphasis on individual students and schools and ensuring that they get the attention and help they need. Furthermore, if we just promote students who shouldn't be promoted, we are only harming society. In my C1, I showed that the current lack of accountability and rubber-stamping of diplomas is leading to a backslide in the economy. These problems would only be exacerbated in an Aff world. The problems, as Aff states, are because "states have the bar so [low]", which would immediately disappear in a P P-I society with a federal test. @ C2 Exit exams reflect the curriculum, not the other way around. By putting SEEs into place, we ensure that teachers are actually teaching the curriculum. Second, all the problems Aff cites are with basic multiple choice tests. The thing with P P-I societies is that their views of education are starkly different from the current paradigm. They value individual opinion and free expression, and thus we have these wonderful examples of tests: http://www.debate.org... (check the links in the 6th post) Note how the tests are completely free response and allow students to use their own methods. Such examples of critical thinking free response tests raise the bar and encourage student achievement. Students get to construct their own strategies and thinking styles, which is just what the Brooks-Young cards says they need to do. The problems that Aff brings up are problems with society today and low-level multiple-choice exams. The negative value structure of P P-I immediately takes out all of his harms and introduces unique benefits. P P-I societies value education and the individual, which is the cornerstone of social progress and the solution to today's problems.

d9e90206-2019-04-18T18:41:35Z-00003-000

My opponent states that being gay/lesbian is predetermined based on things such as finger length. So, if this is true, females who have male like fingers and males who have different fingers would have to be considered gay or lesbian? This is just as irrational as gays claiming they don't have the same human rights. Is it morally correct for one to feel gay or lesbian because of their finger size? Must they make this choice? 3.5% of America is gay according to a UCLA study. According to a recent survey 83% of Americans claim to be a Christian. You can not defy the fact that a majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Should the government appeal to 3.5%, or 83%? Marriage is originated between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that Christianity is correct. I am arguing that the modern marriage is from Christianity which is suppose to be between a man and a woman. Gays have a civil union. Now, is it morally correct that civil unions do not have the same right as marriages? No, a civil union should have the same rights as a marriage. That is not what this debate is about though, it is about if gays are part of the definition of marriage, which they are not and shouldn't be a part of. Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female? Bringing up if God exists or not is a totally different discussion and is irrelevant. I am not a Christian but I do know what marriage is based from and that a majority of America is Christian. Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. A "traditional, Christian marriage" IS what a marriage is based off today. Like it or not, that is what marriage is. If you want to change that, debate that in a different section. Telling gay couples they can not marry is similar to telling a black man they can not be white. Does that mean they are filthy and wrong? No, it means they are different. Black people have rights now, so can gays. I promote that. But, black people do not consider themselves white. Black people consider themselves people who deserve the same rights Whites do. Why can't gays and straight people consider themselves to be couples in love who deserve the same right, just as black and whites do now? Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal. http://www.christianpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

d9e90206-2019-04-18T18:41:35Z-00004-000

Thanks for the debate Cameron. 1. Homosexuality is not a choice Homosexuality has a significant genetic component: According to Time Magazine, "It's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves. With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line. What's going on? Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings." [1] In addition, according to New Scientists, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [2] In addition, many studies link being gay with pre-natal testosterone exposure (which would be determined genetically, since the fetus's genetics determine which hormones it manufactures). According to the Seattle Times, "In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure. Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. 'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women,' Breedlove said. This can't be a fluke.'" [3] 2. Homosexuality in nature The same Seattle Times article points out that sheep breeders have long known that 8% of rams refuse to mate (because they are gay). A book by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., called Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity outlines all the different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. For example, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are homosexual. [4] The book is the first to document homosexual behavior on such a wide scale because the taboo nature of the subject led many previous biologists/naturalists to exclude observed homosexual behaviors from their published literature. Bahemihl documents 1500 species that display homosexual behavior. [5] If animals, which are not rational beings, engage in homosexual behavior, it must be "natural" and cannot be a "choice." 3. Equal Protection The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law." Gay marriage opponents usually argue that "gay people have an equal right to marriage because they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender." However, since homosexuality is not a choice, gay people, by definition, cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender, so they do not have equal protection, unless my opponent endorses the idea of loveless marriages. 4. Separate is inherently unequal As the Supreme Court famously said in Brown v. the Board of Education, "separate . . . is inherently unequal." Just as segregated schools were going to be inherently unequal because Southern states had an inherent disinterest in making the "black" schools as good as the "white" schools, so domestic partnership will be inherently unequal because states and the federal government (or at least many legislators) have a disinterest in making the two institutions exactly the same. So gay couples will always find it difficult, for example, to visit each other in hospitals (and be recognized as the other's proxy decision-maker), to inherit from each other, to help a non-American partner gain citizenship (and not be deported), etc. The only way to ensure gay people receive equal rights is to make the two institutions the same. Even most civil union states do not grant all the same rights to gay couples. 5. Stigma Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married implies that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. Let's be honest here about the true reason to try to limit marriage to "traditional, Christian marriage." 6. Utilitarianism We should seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Gay marriage generates tax revenue for the state and business for a lot of people (caterers, photographers, etc), so there are benefits to allowing it, but absolutely no downsides, as we'll see later with studies of countries where it is allowed. ==Rebuttal== R1) Traditional Christian marriage This is the argument from tradition, which is merely the is-ought fallacy. Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is morally right for it to be that way or it ought to be that way. The same argument would justify not allowing blacks and whites to marry. Also, the Bible is not exactly a good moral guide: it tells us to stone our children for being disobedient, for one thing. Lott, the most moral man in the Kingdom of Sodom, told the villagers that they could rape his daughters (rather than his two visitors) and had sex with his daughters and impregnated them once he fled the city. This is not exactly the best morality tale. So if the Bible should not inform our morals, we should not look to it when deciding anything. In addition, the Bible is a work of fiction. Here are 700 inconsistencies in the Bible. [6] In addition, the account of Paul fails to mention the virgin birth, which you would think is kind of a big deal. Why should we deny real people rights based on a fictional book. God doesn't even exist. Proof 1: The Problem of Evil P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent). P2: Suffering exists. P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist. Proof 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist. P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so. P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will. P3: A being without free will cannot be described as omnipotent. P4: A being cannot posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. P5: Therefore God does not exist. [7] R2) Gay marriage degrades marriage for others This argument is inherently silly. No one goes home to his loving wife and his beautiful children and thinks, "wow, I can't enjoy any of this because those gays can get married." There is no evidence that people lose respect for the institution of marriage. "In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized--Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain--the rate of heterosexual marriage stability has either gone up, remained stable, or declined consistent with other countries in the region that do not recognize same-sex marriage." [8] So gay marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage. If anything, turn this argument, gay marriage strengthens marriage because it shows that all people want to pledge themselves to each other. Sources: [1]-[5] http://www.debate.org... [6] http://www.cs.umd.edu... [7] Cerebral_Narcissist, http://www.debate.org... [8] http://civilliberty.about.com...

d9e90206-2019-04-18T18:41:35Z-00005-000

Gay marriage defeats the purpose of "marriage". Modern day marriage is descended from Christianity and the Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that gay couples should not get the same rights, but for what their partnership should be called.

825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00000-000

Most of the final round has been devoted by my opponent to address my argument that pre-tax money (EBIT) will be less in a high tax regime. By doing this he has tacitly conceded that if my objections are valid, they represent a flaw in his argument.Let us go through each of his rebuttals one by one...Contention #1: More money has to be paid to governmentMy opponent argued that the tax has to be paid after this money is calculated. So this money should be same. What he has failed to understand is that more money has to be paid by everyone, including the suppliers of the company. As a result the suppliers will increase there price leading to higher cost. Similarly employees too have to pay a larger tax. This may force the company to increase compensation. All these taxes will be reflected in the final sales price of the output. Higher sales price will decrease consumption leading to depressed economy and lower pre-tax profit. What we need to understand is that tax is not decided after everyone has made the money. The tax rates are known from start.Contention #2: Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax.My opponent has declined to consider this point arguing that this concerns international trade so it is irrelevant. I would like to state that those who believe international trade to be irrelevant are headed for extinction. Suppose a company loses out its costumers since its foreign rivals (who enjoy less tax) out compete it. Let me suggest that the company will have less EBIT because of less revenue.Contention #3: Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economyThe rebuttal was that there is no tax incentive to do so. However it is possible that the CEO may choose to forgo some tax incentive to invest in an economy which has a low tax rate and more growth as that will be more beneficial in long term.We can conclude:Low tax rate: Lots of money. Some is reinvested. Some is taken as profitHigh tax rate: No money! No reinvestment! No profit!My opponent has raised an interesting objection. I had posted a link to a research paper which he has acknowledged to be 'accurate and insightful'. However as per him the paper is all about 'tax cuts vs. increased government spending' and not about 'low tax vs high tax'. When government charges higher taxes, it typically increases its spending also. 'Increasing government spending' is usually synonymous with 'high tax regime'. Thus this paper is highly relevant.In the last round, my opponent has provided a link to a book authored by a trade union economist. In this round he has decided to refer to an article written by a fiction writer![1]In this debate the voters have to decide whether they support a theory being argued by fiction writers and trade union economists but being contradicted by studies carried out by respectable and independent researchers.They have to vote for or against a flawed theory which even defies common sense.Vote Con.I would like to thank my opponent and wish him best of luck for future debates![1] http://www.larrybeinhart.com...

825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00003-000

I will try to keep my argument as simple as possible – so let me start with an illustration (example): Scenario #1: Corporation ABC is budgeted a "pre-tax" annual profit of $1,000,000. The tax rate is effectively 35% (which is, basically, what it is now). So, the tax is $350,000 and, "after-tax" net profits of $650,000. Scenario #2: Like Scenario #1 Corporation ABC is budgeted "pre-tax" annual profit of $1,000,000. However, the tax rate NOW is effectively 50% (which is, roughly what it was from the 1950's – 1980's). So, NOW the tax is $500,000 and, "after-tax" net profits of $500,000. My simple argument is that the CEO of ABC corporation is more motivated to invest the "pre-tax" profits of $1,000,000 in expanding the company (hiring people, research, leases, etc. ) when it will only cost $500k in net profit (50% tax rate), as opposed to the $650k it would cost in net profit with a tax rate of 35%. Think about it… would you like to get something worth a million dollars and have to pay $650k for it, or only $500k? Pretty easy answer…. huh? When taxes are high, CEO's are even MORE motivated to avoid them. The easiest, and most productive means to avoid them is through business expansion. In a study title, "Having their cake and eating it too", which was published just two weeks ago by the "Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives", the researchers claimed that: "This study examines historical data on business investment and cash flow from 1961 through 2010, and, using econometric techniques, finds no evidence in the historical data that lower taxes have directly stimulated more investment. " They go on further to find that, "As a means of stimulating growth, employment, and even private business spending, the historical evidence suggests that business tax cuts are both economically ineffective and distributionally regressive. " Another way of looking at it is ‘the higher the corporate tax rate is, the more the government is enticing CEO's to reinvest in their companies to avoid paying that tax'. As far as the rest of your argument goes, concerning international economies and comparable tax rates, I believe that those are irrelevant matters concerning my contention, and the basis for this debate. . http://www.policyalternatives.ca... . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... . http://www.calgaryherald.com...

825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00004-000

I would like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for instigating this debate! My opponent has provided a single flawed (as I will show) argument to support the contention. Moreover he has not bothered to back his argument with any data what so ever. The contention is that the corporation has a certain amount of money left over after transaction of all business. They can either choose to book profit or reinvest. A higher tax rate will give them the incentive to reinvest. However a higher tax rate will mean there is less money available after the business is conducted! My opponent has assumed that this money will remain same whether the tax rate is increased or decreased. Less available money will mean that in general both profit as well as reinvestment will decrease! The reasons for the less money include. 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy. If we compare effective tax rates [1][2] and GDP growth rate [3] for various countries, we see that in general countries with lower tax rates have performed surprisingly well. For example - Singapore is having a 11.5% tax is having a GDP growth of 14.5 % which is 3rd highest in the world! On other hand most of the highly taxed economies (US, Canada, Russia, France, Germany ) with 30% + taxes are stuck at 2 to 3% growth rate. However let me warn that GDP growth depends on many factors so exceptions are possible. However as we go through the data, the general trend is quite obvious. I look forward to the next round! [1] http://www.suite101.com... [2] http://www.cdhowe.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00005-000

This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, "Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that "high" income tax on any profits.

ecf1b7d4-2019-04-18T11:23:11Z-00003-000

Humans have been used as a form of currency for 1000s of years, even still to this day they're used in the form of slaves. Slavery, while regarded as morally inhumane, has yielded many wonders and constructs of today, such as America. Such wonders would otherwise not have been made and have made life easier for everyone. Due to aiding the construction of America, one can say that slavery has aided the well being of man kind and millions of people. Thus slavery is good in some context. This brings me to my next point. Considering there, as demonstrated above, is a context where slavery yields positive results, is it unreasonable to assume that dead babies can yield positive results? Let's look into that. Where legally permitted, mothers commit abortions all over the world as if they're having their morning coffee, they don't think twice about killing a baby and see abortion as morally ethical. It's also a statistical fact that women kill more babies than men through their infanticide violence. [A] Considering women are the biggest killers of children in the known world, how is it that a woman stands before me today, defiantly and so self righteously telling me that I can't use a babies corpse as currency? Wouldn't that seem almost, hypocritical? I would urge my opponent to cease THEIR statistical violent tendencies, before criticising mine. Using babies as currency would allow for us to take a eugenics approach to reproduction. One can now trade any babies with poor traits, leaving only the most healthy and beautiful babies to survive. This would mean children whom do survive, are good looking and live happy and healthy lives. I would ask my opponent, why are you denying babies their right to a healthy and happy life? Are you morally coherent? I expect my opponent to touch upon all points and answer all questions or else my opponent must forfeit in typical female fashion. [A] https://www.childtrends.org...

423a6ad6-2019-04-18T13:35:13Z-00004-000

First, I wish to emphasize the prompt asks whether abortion SHOULD be legal. Obviously, abortions currently are legal in the U.S., but that is irrelevant. Pro will argue why they should continue, and I will argue why they should not. I will do so on the basis of logic, science, and legal consistency, under the assumption that human life deserves to be protected. But, since there was no format specified, I will start with rebuttals. == Rebuttals == Violinist Analogy: It would, no doubt, be alarming to awake and find yourself plugged into the kidneys of a musician against your will. However, pregnancy is not akin to being kidnapped and plugged into a stranger. Consider, if you have agreed to donate your kidney to a possible recipient, then there is no justification to willingly unplug and kill that recipient. This, I contend, is a more accurate analogy to pregnancy. All sex (except rape) is consensual by definition. And, since even the best birth control cannot advertise 100% effectiveness, all consensual sex therefore comes with the possibility of pregnancy. Therefore, consenting to sex is by definition consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. This is indisputable. If we once again relate this to our consenting organ donor, then it appears Pro's analogy has little relevance. Pro did not directly bring up pregnancy due to rape, so I will not address that in this round. Woman vs. Billionaires: Once again Pro presents a false analogy. Pro tries to equate billionaires refusing to give up their fortunes to women refusing to give up their bodily rights. The problem is that these two examples are totally dissimilar. A billionaire refusing to give money to charity is not directly killing anyone. Sure, you could say indirectly maybe, but that standard could be applied to all of us - I could be indirectly killing a coal miner in Peru since my choice to flip a light switch on is driving the demand for a dangerous energy source. In contrast, abortion is directly and intentionally ending a human life who shares half your chromosomes. Big difference. 3 Day Embryo vs. 5 Yr. Old Child: An interesting moral dilemma, but I can play that game all day - what if one room contained 100 strangers and the other contained your sister? What if one had your child and one had your wife? How about a sick person vs. a healthy one? Who do you save? If both groups are morally equivalent, then would you simply flip a coin? Of course not. To reduce this dilemma to a simple checklist is a severe straw man. This analogy seems clever when applied to embryos, but if fails when applied to other types of humans, which makes it useless. If Abortion is Murder: Here Pro tries to show that "anti-choicers" must either advocate putting all women in prison or convert to pro-choice. This is largely an irrelevant point since abortion is currently legal, and it has nothing to say about why abortion SHOULD remain legal other than Pro thinks it seems "absurd." If abortion were to become illegal, obviously there would be consequences for breaking the law, as is the case with all laws. I fail to see how this is controversial. Right to Life Untenable: It is a Non Sequitur that supporting a "right to life" must mean supporting an absolute right to life. Pro gives no reason to believe one necessarily implies the other. I am not advocating a "simplistic absolute right to life" anymore than Pro is advocating a "simplistic absolute right to end life." I believe we are debating specifically about embryonic abortions, and that's what I'm going to stick to. Another straw man erected by Pro. Personhood and Rights: Here Pro tries to show that an embryo is not a person using 5 criteria. First, Pro gives us no reason to accept these 5 criteria as authoritative. I could easily offer other criteria supported by other philosophers or doctors, but let's go along with it for now. The problem is there's evidence that at just 9 weeks, an embryo can hiccup and react to loud noises [1]. This can meet Pro's criteria #1 and #3. Since Pro claimed that an embryo, even if we are "extremely flexible," meets zero criteria, this argument is now at least in doubt if not refuted. To take it further, let's apply these criteria to other people - a brain-dead person lacks 1-5, an unconscious person lacks 1-5, a severely mentally handicapped person lacks 1-5, on and on.... are none of these groups people? Can they therefore be killed at will? Not only do embryos meet some of these criteria, but this definition fails when applied to other groups of people and should be rejected. == Argument == Scientifically, legally, and logically, an embryo should be considered human life. 1. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [2]". Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [3]. The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. 2. Federal Law - even Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any action that injures a child in utero can be punished as if the injury was inflicted on the mother herself, even if the offender acted accidentally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on the insane and cannot be justified with logic. For the sake of legal consistency, restricted abortion should not be legal. 3. Logical Beginning of Life - Beyond conception, there is no clear or consistent definition of life's beginning. There are very few people who draw the line at birth - even the most ardent abortion supporter would not advocate aborting 3 minutes before birth. But where then DOES the line get drawn? 3 hours? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months? This is a very difficult question to answer since there is no clear answer to be found. If there is no obvious or consistent definition of life, then there is no obvious or consistent time to say abortion is ok. Viability is often used by pro-choice advocates, but this is a largely meaningless term that I'd be happy to address in the next round if Pro wishes. [1] http://www.leaderu.com... [2] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [3] https://www.nlm.nih.gov............

9a840a37-2019-04-18T18:13:26Z-00003-000

My opponent writes that I am most concerned with autonomy. Well, of course, and so do you. And if it weren't for church autonomy the church of Christ would have been a full-fledged denomination right now. First of all, my opponent's reasoning is illogical. She implies that I was inconsistent by saying that contributing churches can contribute directly to Alan Highers who edits/publishes the Spiritual Sword. However, would not the money eventually go to the Getwell congregation or the Spiritual Sword? I suppose this answers questions A-B. Furthermore, Annanicole still pursues her argument about "one cupperism" can't she take the answer: "no, I don't teach that"? This debate is about church cooperation, may I remind you. A shocking revelation My opponent admits that the Bible -though I find the Spiritual Sword as fallible- is FALLIBLE. She admits that the Bible is NOT INFALLIBLE! I don't need any explanation concerning her declaration but let the words from what she wrote speak for themselves. And how many times do I tell my opponent: IT IS JOT WRONG send bibles. What my argument is all about is that the Spiritual Sword is unscriptural in teaching (in terms of support and practice of sponsoring church agreement). Now, i think my opponent will agree that supporting an unscriptural material will be as condoning error. This is an answer to letter C. In an effort to dodge my argument about Jehovah's Witnesses she has to resort to somewhat different. Consider the following statement in an answer if we can send Jehovah's Witnesses Literature: "Why, certainly you can, if used properly. "Jehovah's Witnesses literature" is technically in the latest Spiritual Sword under the article commencing on page 34, "Why I Am Not a Jehovah's Witness. " You can see the silliness of her response. And I was not referring to the "if used properly" but I was referring to the materials like "Watchtower" and "Awake". *** "The point of my argument is to see that no autonomy is violated. " Will my opponent affirm that it is indeed in harmony with the Bible to simply change the "Pay to the Order of" on the check to Judge Alan Highers and LET HIM DO IT? Will you say that? I doubt it. Yet you'd have one congregation simply sending money to an "evangelist" who in turn uses the money "to evangelize". How about that? (E) Further, could Judge Highers simply contribute his "support" to the Getwell church so that they can publish the Spiritual Sword? I want to know what "autonomy" is violated by such a scheme. -Will my opponent also affirm send money to another church and do its work; to oversee its money? I don't think an individual can violate any other church's autonomy. Answer to letter E. "if the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to purchase/publish/distribute the Spiritual Sword, then BOTH are involved in evangelism through that work. Same with benevolence. If the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to supply the needs of the destitute, then BOTH are involved in that work. " Well, if that's the case then, doesn't the getwell church oversee the money of Highland church? Doesn't that violate autonomy? Can a congregation oversee the money of another congregation. If a congregation oversee a “little money” of another congregation can it oversee its whole treasury? If not, why not? “*** "Concerning the Antioch church, the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church. " Well, if you follow the example - if that is the exclusive divine pattern - then 1. (F) One congregation may supply physical needs only in cases of famine only, right? That's your example. (G) What happens in cases of a flood - and I call for a passage, by your logic, that calls for one congregation supplying funds to another congregation in cases of flood or hurricane? 2. (H) What happens if one anti- church desires to send food to relieve another little anti- congregation during a famine, and the recipient congregation has no elders? What do you do? "Which they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. " (17: 30). 3. Would not it be most scriptural to utilizer two "messengers" to send this relief? ” I don’t how did my opponent come up with these questions or did she really responded to the statement: “the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church. "But the answer is in this statement but my opponent just wants to stretch my arguments. Now concerning the questions she answered(? ) "(1)Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism? " There is none. It is an expedient under the Great Commission. ” Not sure if she had read my first affirmative but I have already proven that it is not an expedient for it will violate God’s pattern on church cooperation. Remember, the great Commission only authorizes each church to go…and…preach, not an inter-church organization. "(2)Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism? " There is none. There are multiple examples of church cooperation - so much so that there is no specific pattern. It is an expedient. And I suppose that there are multiple examples of a capella singing in the New testament that Instrumental music is an expedient. "(3)Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism? " There is no such necessary inference. Maybe an assumed (unnecessary one), but not a necessary one. Again, it is an expedient governed by common sense and good judgement. ” First, you admit that there is no direct command then, you admit that there is no example and finally, you admitted that there is no necessary inference. So where do you get your authority, through “common sense and good judgment”? You didn’t get your authority from God’s Word but from man. For a thing to be expedient it should not violate any passage in the Bible. Miscellaneous Questions (I)-(L)Where is the direct command for the separation of persons by age or sex for teaching purposes. Where is the example of such? Where is the necessary (essential) inference that such occurred? And, to top it off, By what authority do you do it? There is direct command. But there is a necessary inference in I Cor. 14:23 also include the Great Commission (the go…and preach… command) and I can safely say that it does not violate any Bible passage thus we can say that we have the approval of God’s Word.

9a840a37-2019-04-18T18:13:26Z-00000-000

Dan: "When asked:"Will my opponent also affirm send money to another church and do its work; to oversee its money? I don't think an individual can violate any other church's autonomy." She answered "yes". What a great concession" Anna: Concession? Strange choice of words! I've affirmed that from the get-go: one congregation can send money to another congregation. Once the monies are received, then the elders of the recipient congregation oversee the money. Umm ...concession? **** Dan: "As I said, Alan Highers can contribute to the Getwell congregation with his own money and not break autonomy."' Anna: Wait! Are you debating someone else, too? I ask because I never asked what Mr. Highers might do with his OWN money - and you know it. Can the reader see the evasion? 1. My opponent affirms that Highland may send money to an evangelist such as Mr. Highers. 2. Mr. Highers could easily decide to give the money to Getwell to publish the Spiritual Sword. 3. So NOW, my opponent is "anti-" even Mr. Highers, whom he admits to be a qualified recipient, giving the money to the Getwell Church for ANY purpose. What a treacherous path these anti-s tread! *** Anna: "Tell us all about one congregation sending another congregation MONEY to purchase and distribute Bibles, please." Dan: "Let me answer that by giving you Scriptural proof: Acts 15; Col. 4:16." Anna: Well, I'm waiting. He cites an entire chapter with no comment. Why, after about four opportunities, has he never really answered? We know why! And here it is: My opponent believes that it is a sin for the Highland church of Christ to send money to the Getwell church of Christ for the purpose of purchasing/distributing BIBLES to those who do not own one. That's not a side-swipe: that's right on the nail. He's too embarrassed to really answer it, and too old to run - so he evades. It remains technically unanswered - imaginary "infallibility" or not. For emphasis: the above is EXACTLY what he believes! He's simply ashamed for readers to see it. *** Dan: "I don't know how my opponents have the guts to list multiple examples of cooperation in the New Testament yet, she does not follow them." Anna: Because, as I have repeatedly said, they are not exclusive patterns - EXTREME variation exists among them. And you do not follow them, either - THAT is the irony. And that's typical of anti-s. Look at the types of cooperation, and point out the exclusive pattern: 1. Between churches (Acts 15) 2. Between churches and needy Christians (II Cor 8) 3. Between disciples and elders (Acts 17) 4. Between individuals (II Tim 4: 9) 5. Between Christian 'family' and the needy (I Cor 16: 15) Now, that's not an exhaustive list. What are these people doing? Cooperating. How? Expediency. In the best, most logical, most reasonable manner possible. I repeat: there is no exclusive pattern for Christian cooperation. Where exactly does this anti-ism stop? Logically, it would lead one into anti-orphans home position, anti-church support of Bible colleges, one-cupperism, anti-Sunday Schoolism, anti-located, paid preacher ... anti- this and anti- that, ad infinitum. Even the anti-s can't get together: there is wide variation among them. They finally wall themselves off, effectively self-ostracized from EVERYONE other than a few crank hobby-riders. It (anti-ism) is a pernicious, progressive mental state ... p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e! Logically, you can't defend the Sunday School system, yet oppose contributions to the Getwell church. You can't do it very well, at least. No anti can, because he'll have to preach "generics" and "expedients" on Sunday Schools, then tuck tail and yap about "exclusive patterns" and "automony" on the other. Etc. Etc. You did exactly that! How far along on this anti Trail of Tears are you, anyhow? *** Dan: "I think I can see a great parallel between ananicole and the denominations: Anna—famine only; denominations—faith only." Anna: Ummm ... ok. And you also saw an "exclusive pattern" that you never follow and never outline for us. You also "saw" a "shocking revelation" about infallibility until you read the great Campbell's comments - then not another word from you along that line. You also "see" no difference in principle between generic and specific commands, apparently. I will say this: I'll defend salvation by faith only - as long as I can define "faith" with Thayer's and Liddell/Scott's and Bultmann's definitions of pistis/pisteuo. You'd never accept the negative, either. *** Dan: "Once again, may I remind her that if the great commission authorizes churches to sends to a sponsoring church that would do the entire job for them, then what difference would it make with the Missionary Society." Anna: And may I remind you that there is no such thing as any "sponsoring church" - and nobody ever heard of the term until some anti- became hard-pressed. I've told you that a congregation - whether donor or recipient of aid - is still just a congregation. You admit that. Yet you persist in trying to draw a false parallel by taking a scriptural entity, the recipient, and equivocating it with an unscriptural entity, the Missionary Society. It's not your fault that you have to try that - all antis do it, even though it's been answered hundreds of times - and they seem to understand, if only temporarily. I've never read or heard of an anti- offering a truly parallel 'parallel'. *** Dan: "I don't how she could not understand the irony of my statement, but I was just following her language." Anna: My language? All you did was, once again, try to draw a false parallel between a "generic" command versus a "specific" command. A poor comparison, indeed! "Go" and "teach" are generic. "Sing" is specific. The parallel, like your others ... falls. Plop. *** Dan: "First of all, where did I ever state that that is my "exclusive" pattern?" Anna: Haha! You quoted it, but you are correct: you have waded through four negatives and asserted that there is an exclusive pattern, but WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT! Where is it? WHAT is it? Where is this exclusive pattern that you supposedly follow? Know why you have such trouble with it? Cuz it's an EXPEDIENT! *** Dan: "A church can send to Alan Highers but not to act as a middleman to both congregations." Anna: ~~shaking my head~~. Poor Mr. Highers can buy gas with the money, take out an ad in the paper, buy a tent and hold a meeting, but heaven help him if he gives the money - or any of it - to Getwell. See where the term "anti" comes from? I do congratulate you on at least trying to answer that question. The majority of anti's simply ignore it because their replies would look so silly. *** Dan: "the money sent by the Highland to Alan Highers still end up to Getwell that's why middleman or not it's still wrong." So my opponent's position, broken down, is: you can send money to Mr. Highers only if he agrees not to give a penny of it to the Getwell church. He could give it to a hooker on Lamar Avenue, I suppose, so she can buy a Coke if she's thirsty ... but don't dare waste it by giving to the Getwell church of Christ! See? The absurdities to which anti-ism drives you is de facto proof of the falsity of your position. To conclude, I do think that my opponent means well. I consider him to be a Christian and a saved person. I do believe, however, that, as seen by the implications of his theories, that he is a little blinded by hobbyism. Anti-ism is an unstable mentality, really. I'll close. Although I do not consider this to be my best topic, I have enjoyed discussing the subject. I am no expert on it, however. One of the best ways to disprove anti-ism, I think, is to examine the implications - the extreme positions it logically entails. I hope my opponent can see these consequences.

633472a4-2019-04-18T17:45:19Z-00003-000

I would also like to state that this is my first time on this website so I am unfamiliar with the specifics as far as procedure and order in presenting one's case. I agree that anecdotal evidence is not as effective as national policy, I was just giving context to show that I am not blindly siding in this debate, but instead am well aware with the happenings of this topic as it is prevalent in my life and family. I do not understand your analysis on my first point. In-Vitro insemination cannot happen on accident, and all I am saying in the aforementioned contention is just that Gay parents would have been required to think through what they are doing, whereas, Straight parents sometimes have children on accident. This means the Gay parents have to be 100% sure about what they are doing because they go through the tedious procedure of adopting (1). As far as your statistics for insemination, quite frankly, that is a different debate for another day. I am not taking a stance on insemination, but instead simply on Gay marriage and the married couple's ability to raise a child (through means of adoption, I am not necessarily taking a stance on insemination, that was never stated in my previous argument). About sexuality influence, I invite you to read again what I actually stated. I never said it has no influence, I said it is ridiculous to assume that (which you said you agree is ridiculous) they will force their sexuality. And I stated that it happens where the child becomes straight. Although yes they could become gay and at a higher percentage as you stated, it is not 100% of the time, therefore refuting this corrupting argument. #3 You say this is completely untrue and then go on to use minute statistics to proven drastic point. Yes, maybe approximately 3% of the gay population would disagree in some way, but what about the 97%? Do you honestly think less than a twentieth of the considered population disproves what is supported by the 97%? I do not know where you are getting what you are saying about the APA, but according to their unbiased website, they have not sided one way or another as far as the choice vs naturality of being gay (2). Looking at your purely legalistic argument, it appears both wrong and illogical. First, you state that in the government's eyes they would have the heterosexual interest at heart but not the homosexual interest. This is simply wrong. The combined incomes of a married couple can lead to their placement in a higher tax bracket, and although they don't make children, they may adopt which means less kids in foster homes, so there are less foster homes, so there is less funding required by the government for such social reasons. The homosexual community is in no way asking for elevated status above the heterosexual status under marriage, but is simply asking to be equal. Gay people: pay the same taxes, work the same jobs, fight the same wars, and contribute to society the same as heterosexuals in America and abroad, and it seems simply fair to ensure that they would therefore have the same rights. Before you say that they have rights it just isn't called marriage, please keep in mind that in the governments eyes 'marriage' guarantees certain economic protections for a family unit so it would be in the homosexual interest to indeed be given the right to get married. Yes, it may not be 'traditional marriage' but, then again, what is? When we look to the past, historically what has marriage been? For the greater part of human history it has been comprised of both arranged marriages, and purchases a young man can make to the father of the bride (I am not specifically talking about the bible) so unless one supports the aforementioned, they cannot condemn homosexual marriage saying it is because they support what traditional marriage is. Once again, I am unfamiliar with format so I apologise if my second argument here is not exactly in the format it should have been. (1) - . http://www.more4kids.info... (2) - . http://www.apa.org... Thank you, Derek

3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00002-000

Thank you Roylatham for being the first person to debate me on debate.org. "The liberty of the individual is a necessary postulate of human progress." It is because I agree with this quote by Ernest Renar; that I am in favor of a negation on the resolution: "In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote." for this round my value will be democracy. And upholding my value of democracy will be my criterion of equality. For clarity I would like to define the following terms from my case: Vote: a formal expression of choice. Felon: one who has committed a felony. Equality: evenly balanced. Democracy: a government by the people as so governed. because my opponent didn't offer any definitions my definitions will be the ones that stand for this debate. Before I go on I would like to explain the thesis of my case: it's that if you take out votes in an election it would be undemocratic, and contradicting of a democracy. This was once stated by Paul Ricoeur "the law is one aspect of a much more concrete and encompassing relation, then the relation between commanding and obeying." Where Ricoeur says law I would like to place the law of democracy. So basically even though felons have committed felonies, we must uphold a democracy with equality, by letting the whole democratic society vote. Ricoeurs quote links to my first contention: the practice of disenfranchising would erode the foundational principle of our democratic society. Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act. Like I stated in my definition of democracy it's a "a government by the people as so governed." Meaning for the democracy to effetely work every person must have a voice in the vote. In the resolution it clearly states "democratic society". The "democratic society" is looked upon as a whole; one can't take out individuals from the vote and still think they have the whole "democratic society." My impact for this contention is only with the whole "democratic society" could we get the fair decision in an election. my oppenet argues that "age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment." this is true but the fact of the matter is we are speaking on felons, he goes on to say "convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole who want to be protected from criminals." I agree that it is contrary to citizens interests, but only in the "whole" that in presented in my case "democratic society". It is contrary like he said on interests because we are not respecting the "democratic society" that the resolution is talking about. my opened trays to bring in the U.S. Constitution by saying it "does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president." the thing is the resolution states democratic society. it does not state one certain democratic society such as the U.S. so this argument can be dropped. William Shakespeare once said: "if you prick felons, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die?" When felons leave prison there released back into the society, and thus still affected by it. All people of the "democratic society" are all still citizens. There still affected by whatever congress or the government passes, so denying them the right to vote wouldn't't be equal. If it said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised? Once again felons are affected by the society because 1: they pay taxes and 2: they can buy government owned property like everyone else. he also argues that non-citizens are also excluded from voting, this is true but it is a non topical argument because it doesn't pertain to the resolution stating "felons." he says "The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle." but what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens? now my opponent brings up the fact that felons commit felonies again. but does committing a crime and taking the right to vote away connect? by this I mean: why should we take away the right to vote if the committing of a crime doesn't affect voting? my oppenet brings up the U.S a lot in his case but as already pointed out the resolution doest acclaim say the "U.S democratic society" by saying only two U.S states let felons vote (Vermont and Maine). my oppent states that "Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians", this argument cant be upheld or proven true, because there is no evidence to prove this claim. he also says "Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic." there was no reason to put that in his case because it only hurts the PRO. by proving that taking out votes is undemocratic. as we can clearly see if we vote for the PRO. we will be punishing criminals twice by taking away the right to vote and by making them serve a sentence. he states that letting felons vote will hurt our economy and justice system. this is not true because there are such felonies that are minor such as J-walking and repeated speeding. in contrary it doesn't hurt the justice system, it stegthens it for the chance to let the system work and take a shot at prosecuting it., I do agree with this sentence in his case "A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm." but even though they have committed felonies and there in prison they should have the right to vote in the "democratic society".

6f09dd50-2019-04-18T16:59:44Z-00008-000

Weapons in schools should not be allowed. Faculty should not feel the need to take it to another level with weapons and if they do then they should call the police immediately. There are other objects around a classroom that teachers could use as a weapon to stop someone from acting up, firearms are not necessary.

1733c744-2019-04-18T12:03:59Z-00002-000

Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.

630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00002-000

The minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.

5ed8ad0-2019-04-18T17:41:16Z-00003-000

According to http://www.fda.gov...... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food "After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. This conclusion stems from an extensive study of animal cloning and related food safety, culminating in the release of three FDA documents in January 2008: a risk assessment, a risk management plan, and guidance for industry. Researchers have been cloning livestock species since 1996, starting with the famous sheep named Dolly. When it became apparent in 2001 that cloning could become a commercial venture to help improve the quality of herds, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) asked livestock producers to voluntarily keep food from clones and their offspring out of the food chain until CVM could further evaluate the issue."*Proponents of livestock cloning see it benefiting consumers, producers, animals and the environment.**Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any clones, are as safe as food we eat every day." Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of safety-While it may not be exactly guarantee there is still safety. According to...http://www.fda.gov...... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food FDA issued the risk assessment, the risk management plan, and guidance for industry in draft form for public comment in December 2006. Since that time, FDA has updated the risk assessment to reflect new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the draft.“Our additional review only serves to strengthen our conclusions on food safety,” says Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones, are as safe as food we eat every day.” FDA’s concern about animal health prompted the agency to develop a risk management plan to decrease any risks to animals involved in cloning. FDA also issued guidance to clone producers and the livestock industry on using clones and their offspring for human food and animal feed. What Cloning Means to Consumers• FDA has concluded that cattle, swine, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food, are safe for human and animal consumption. • Food labels do not have to state that food is from animal clones or their offspring. FDA has found no science-based reason to require labels to distinguish between products from clones and products from conventionally produced animals. • The main use of clones is to produce breeding stock, not food. These animal clones—copies of the best animals in the herd—are then used for conventional breeding, and the sexually reproduced offspring of the animal clones become the foodproducing animals.• Due to the lack of information on clone species other than cow, goat, and pig (for example, sheep), FDA recommends that other clone species do not enter the human food

9b0d4204-2019-04-18T19:19:47Z-00002-000

Here is the link to the article about the Canadian system that I'm relying upon: http://www.twincities.com... I hope it works. !. "sketchiness" I have reviewed both descriptions. How would the government determine the amount of the voucher to be given to each individual? Arbitrarily, at $2000 per person? Or the median annual health insurance premium? Or by what method? Who would be eligible to get the voucher? A voucher system would preserve the current costly (administrative costs of all health insurance companies - is just one component) status quo. A few years ago the CEO of United Health Care retired. His retirement package was $490 million! $490 Million! $490 MILLION! I hope my point is evident. Your Second Argument: "we're talking 300 million people and up that would be using single payer, or potentially using the public option. You are correct that it is costly. There is no way the government could pay everyone off while still paying the hospitals full price, except sending your taxes through the roof. Right now they can handle the medicare/aid patients, but I don't think it would be so easy with the whole population" My Response: You advocate a voucher system. I assume that all 300 million people would be potentially entitled to a voucher. Could an employer decide to discontinue his group health plan and tell his employees to apply for a government voucher? Regarding efficient administration, the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are able to accomplish their missions relative, potentially, to the whole population. Your Third Argument: "Once again, if the world was fair, we wouldn't have to worry about that, but the world isn't fair. The government isn't honest With a good bureaucracy, single payer or a public option could work. And we might very well have a good bureaucracy for a while. But, it is so easy to corrupt, I'm not willing to take the chance. Now, I ask you, how would one corrupt the HAA?" My Response: For thirty years I practice law. I interacted with government (and private corporate) bureaucrats every day. This is my opinion: Generally, most bureaucrats are honest, competent, and just want to do their job and stay out of trouble. Some are incompetent. And some are corrupt. The bureaucrat, WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE CORPORATION, has a certain mentality. All such bureaucrats are potentially corruptible, INCLUDING THE BUREAUCRATS WHO WILL ADMINISTER THE HAA.

6702c0a2-2019-04-18T16:52:16Z-00003-000

1. Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. 2. Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs. 3. The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion 4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. 5. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead. 6. Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion. 7. Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time. 8. Making abortion illegal is also a class struggle since the rich can always go to other places where it is legal & have an abortion whilst the poor cannot do this, but have to resort to unsafe abortions which can lead to their death. 9. Making abortion illegal is more or less compulsory pregnancy which contradicts the quest & fight for freedom. 10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency. 11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right" 12. Personhood begins at birth, not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (fetus), not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. 13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. 14. The anti-abortion position is usually based on religious beliefs and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law. 15. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman"s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000, whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. 16. Access to abortion is necessary because contraceptives are not always readily available. Women need a doctor's prescription to obtain many birth control methods, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, and the diaphragm. 17. Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to bring babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions to full term. 18. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse. 20. A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. Having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. 21. Abortion reduces crime. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies, and since unwanted babies are often raised in poverty, their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood are increased. 22. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby? 23. We get right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness when we are born. he fetus does not have these rights until it is born. So abortion is not murder & abortion does not go against the rights of a fetus since it does not have any until born. 24. Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive. 25. If someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal 26. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 27. Being a mother is just one option for women.* Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 28. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. Sources 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://abortion.procon.org... 3. http://www.topix.com...

b0defb6a-2019-04-18T16:57:43Z-00007-000

i would like to debate this with a pro meat person who knows the facts about human biology. this debate is about human biology, it is not can we eat meat nor should we eat meat is is are we meant to eat meat. you cannot argue other animals eat meat unless you compare said animal to human biology. anyone is welcome to join this debate but i strongly encourage meat eaters to give it a go.

ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00000-000

Thanks Danielle! This debate has definitely been a fun one to participate in. [Debate Summary] Clarification It is evident that my opponent completely misunderstands what a counterplan is. My counterplan (ie. proposed changes to the status quo which gives me a fraction of the BOP) was in regards to quantity because, obviously, I can feasibly make sure that all homework is beneficial and of a good quality - that does NOT mean that I can’t talk about homework quality within the status quo and in the past because my counterplan is not a list of my advocacies (as my opponent seems to believe). Ergo, there is no contradiction, I hope it is now clear to my opponent and to voters of what a counterplan is and how it is different to my advocacies and rebuttals. So, just to clarify, my counterplan states that quantity is too high so it will be reduced. My rebuttal to my opponent’s source is that it addresses an older version of the education system with different qualities of homework. These statements are not contradictory and can coexist without any contradictions. Nobody should be confused by this. I extend those arguments. Point 1 The outcome of this contention is simple. My opponent uses incredibly unreliable data that fails to account for 99.99999163742% of the children in the world (children in poverty and in poor conditions are still children and should be [and are] included in this figure). Virtually all of my opponent’s sources here deal with large quantities of homework which is something that I’m specifically advocating the removal of from the status quo (as is made evident in my counterplan). My opponent has attempted to show that my sources do not account for as many people as hers however my sources are not being used in the same way that hers are. She is using her sources to prove that homework should be abolished using statistical data. I was using mine for general claims that bare the same weight regardless of the amount of people involved since I did not use these for statistic related claims. She also appears to believe that not every beneficial thing must be mandatory. I have accepted this however my opponent seems to believe that this is as far as her burden requires her to achieve. This is objectively false. There are some things that are beneficial and should be mandatory (my opponent concedes this). Therefore, my opponent’s burden entails them in proving that whilst homework can be beneficial it should not be mandatory. My concession of beneficial things not having to be mandatory does not mean that my opponent’s burden is advanced in any way. Counterplan 1A. My opponent once again misunderstands what a counterplan is. My opponent lies about me saying that my counterplan involves only beneficial homework being implemented. She tries to get out of this precarious situation she’s been put in by saying that by saying this it means that I advocate all homework - even non beneficial homework. This is simply not true. A counterplan is a proposed change to the status quo on the the negative case’s behalf. I cannot make a beneficial related change to the status quo because as my opponent pointed out earlier on in this debate, that simply isn’t feasible. This doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t prefer there to be only beneficial homework, I would. Though this is virtually impossible so I am focussing my counterplan elsewhere. 1B. My opponent makes an identical misinterpretation to what she says in response to point 1A. Just because I’m not making a proposed change on the status quo to make all homework beneficial, doesn’t mean that I do not advocate this - I merely find this proposed changed to be unfeasible and unrealistic. Please extend my counterplan as my opponent pretty much drops it all and instead resorts to refuting nonexistent argument regarding benefits and then making strange and ultimately false complaints about me advocating homework that isn’t beneficial. Point 2 In this contention I proved that the burden on parents is of an extremely low percentage. The majority are clearly content with the status quo. Regardless, even if this objection fails you still ought to presume Con as the counterplan minimizes homework quantity for those that receive too much homework, therefore the burden on parents is virtually non existent. Either way, you ought to consider this point in my favor. She also raised the objection of family time being lost which was also refuted by the fact that I used psychological evidence in order to refute this point and show that in reality family time is created as opposed to being lost. I also showed that students are set based on abilities and are given the amount of homework that should be sufficient in correlation with their ability so that everybody spends the same amount of time on homework (though not necessarily doing the same amount of homework or the same difficulty level in homework). Furthermore, I managed to show that parents doing homework is neither good nor bad. Though no benefits at all is worse. Sets and teaching opinion on students is formulated based on class work and examination (which I proved via citation in the previous round). Therefore, whilst this does happen, all this means is that some students won’t gain anything from homework and some will. I refuted the objection in regards to resources due to the fact that schools take the student’s parents/carers financial state into consideration. My opponent blatantly lies when she says: “Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. ” This is massively untrue. I will quote my response from R3: “She helps explain the very purpose of homework itself. She points out that homework cannot be monitored in regards to approach and therefore students may not grasp or understand the material properly. If they do not understand it and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher’s duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them. The lesson is designed to teach all students generally. The homework shows specific pupils progress and understanding of that lesson which teachers can then monitor and intervene if necessary in order to help said student to understand it properly”. My opponent’s claim that I dropped this is ludicrous. Point 3 My opponent claims that homework cuts time into things and she also claim that it provides a second shift of work for children. This is automatically negated by the counterplan. Additionally, even if my counterplan was not enacted this contention would still work in my favor since after school activities exist and I presented a large statistic showing that people have plenty of time to do homework alongside activities and I demonstrated that there are a record breaking amount of people in part time jobs in the UK which my opponent drops. Point 4 I have shown that homework does not count towards sets for children. In fact class work and examination are used only. The only claims that my opponent has been able to muster are bare assertions that homework is often graded (which is irrelevant since grading homework is not the same as taking it into consideration when assessing that student’s ability - which is what general classwork and examinations are for). I concede that cheating happens however my opponent’s website regarding cheating statistics is unreliable (and my opponent drops this argument). We can conclude that since homework does not count for anything important, cheating has no effects (neither positive or negative). Whereas the students that opt in to do their homework properly receive the benefits from homework which my opponent concedes when she says that just because homework is beneficial, doesn’t mean that it should be mandatory. Once again, my opponent lies and states that I dropped the effects of HW’s drill and kill methodology. This is false. Again, I will have to quote my response which my opponent supposedly claims is nonexistent when she says that I dropped it: “Again, the review my opponent cites in an attempt to prove that homework results in the loss of sleep, self esteem and childhood is refuted by the counterplan as it once again references to excessive homework and homework taking up valuable time from children. ” The outcome of this debate is incredibly clear. The resolution is negated.

ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00001-000

Keep in mind I cannot respond to any of Con's dropped contentions.Point 1My opponent seemingly defeats his own argument. In the last round he said exactly this: "Here is a remind of my counter plan: Homework should be given in moderate quantity (in short).This is about homework QUANTITY (ie. how much homework is given) NOT homework QUALITY (ie. how beneficial it is)."And yet when explaining why my sources are allegedly irrelevant, he says:"She falsely states that I must prove that homework assigned then vs. now is different in quantity... All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it’s harder." In the first statement he says that he is arguing QUANTITY is what matters in assessing homework. And then in the second statement he says DIFFICULTY is what's relevant and quantity isn't relevant at all. I'm sure I am not the only one confused by Con's statements, and once again, I will not have the opportunity to respond.To repeat my position, students have had roughly the same amount of HW quantity over the last 30 years. Con does not deny this - nor has Con proven that a DIFFERENCE in education standards over the last 30 years means a difference one way or the other (easier or harder) let alone a difference in the quality of HW assignments. Moreover, I argued that Con had not proven that his studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the pro-HW studies he cites (noting that quantity of homework is most important -- which I've argued against) are any more valid. He dropped this contention and has not proven that his studies represent a larger sample size.I pointed out that my study examined data of more than 18,000 students to uncover explanations for academic performance. Con suggests we have to use the entire world population of children as a measure which is absurd. Out of 1.9 billion children, 1 billion of them live in destitute poverty [1]. These children, especially in the third world, can't even eat or drink and millions die from starvation daily -- yet Con suggests we should factor them into the population of students who benefit from homework, when they have never seen a school in their life. That is an abusive standard no judge would take seriously. Quite obviously we are discussing homework in the West (especially the U.S.) where public education and the subsequent standards is the norm. Thus 18K is a good sample size for research. Con has not even tried to present us with an estimate of the number of students his cited studies cover, let alone present research that accounts for a larger size. Some studies in his favor have "hundreds" yet I invite Con to prove his studies are more relevant in size, date and scope [2, 3]. One study in his favor had a sample size of around 1,300 students -- or about 1/18th of the population my sources covered. In short, Con has dug himself a hole in trying to attack the credibility of my sources and studies; he has not proven his are any more valid. In the last round I decided to move on from this and noted it would appear SOME cases show that homework could be beneficial (accounting for a lot of different variables). Of course, that is completely irrelevant to the rest of my argument. I've pointed out that not everything that is beneficial ought to be required as well as suggested the potential negatives of HW outweigh the potential positives. Indeed that is the crux of my position in this debate. 1A. I pointed out that even if HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will be beneficial. He responded with accusations of straw mans when in fact he fails to see the absurdity of this objection. If Con is not saying that only BENEFICIAL homework be required, then he is advocating that even NON-beneficial homework be required. Why would Con advocate non-beneficial homework?! That would be punishment with no substance or positive effect. Therefore it is only logical to assume Con is only advocating BENEFICIAL homework. If he would like to challenge this, I guess he can...1B. It would appear Con does want to challenge this lol. He writes, "Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation of the counter plan. I never mentioned that it had to be beneficial, nor did I say that beneficial things have to be mandatory." So here we can see that Con even supports HW that is not beneficial, meaning he has no good reason (positive benefits) to support HW at all. And furthermore, Con skirts 1B as if it is a meaningless statement when in fact it is the entire basis of my argument. Please extend all of my 1B points -- I pointed out why not all things that are beneficial should be required. Ergo, even if homework were beneficial, it need not be mandatory. Con thinks HW (despite being so problematic) should just be imposed whether it has benefits or not, which is an even more ridiculous position than I think anyone expected him to take. Point 2Con accuses me of not refuting the counter plan which is false. His counter plan is simply "less homework" which I have argued, especially in Point 2. "Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework..." which proves I did address his counter plan of less HW time. My opponent says that it's okay for students to spend different amounts of time on HW, which fails to address my point on an undue burden for slow learners or those who take longer to do assignments. This means additional stress and imposition for those students on recreational and rest time, which Con glosses over as being addressed by special classes/assignments but this cannot be proven or enforced. Even students in special classes learn at a different pace from each other. Con asked for sources proving that parents do their kid's homework. I presented the studies; Con dropped this point and said "Well kids should be doing it themselves." Sure, but extend my argument that they are often NOT doing it themselves based on my statistics. Con must concede this point; instead he suggests this simply doesn't matter. Obviously when parents do their kid's assignments, it places burden on the parents and provides no utility to the child while still creating work for teachers. Once again - whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to HW monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments.In response, Con says "since there will be a lower homework quantity, this means that these people will not be overwhelmed with homework" which clearly doesn't address my points at all regarding lack of resources, not just time. Con also says that the states account for financial factors in HW assignments and cited this source from the UK -- yet not a single line from that source said anything about poverty affecting assigned work or HW. I invite my opponent to copy and paste the line from that source which proves his point here [4]. I have no reason to accept it thus far. And besides, people within the same school can still come from vastly different financial backgrounds. Con states, "If [students] do not understand [HW] and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher’s duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them." However teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework - a factor cited in Con's previous source from the CPE [5]. Con dropped that even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. Con also dropped that his citations don't account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information.Point 3Con says "She makes a an argument riddled with fallacies. She claims that homework cuts into time for anything." That is not fallacious but a logical fact. If you spend time on X (homework) you cannot spend time on Y (anything else) that requires significant attention. That's called the law of non-contradiction. Just because school provides some activities doesn't mean it provides the same activities or amount of time/attention on those activities as parents or kids would like. Con notes that school, work, etc. cut into people's time and yet I am not advocating those be abolished. I explained how homework provides a "second shift" of work that kids should not have to face. Please extend my arguments on parents not being subjected to this burden and having options here; Con dropped it and I will not be able to respond.Point 4Con says that HW "counts for nothing" yet HW is often graded. Con says I have provided "no evidence" of cheating. See explanations regarding points 12-15 in the last round. He only contested 1 of those sources. One is a forum - the rest are academic - and he ignores that parents doing HW is cheating which he admits happens. He dropped every one of my arguments on copying and using the internet to cheat as well. Con also dropped the negative effects of HW's "drill and kill" methodolgy and its impact on learning. PLEASE EXTEND MY LAST ROUND'S CONCLUSION.Thanks!SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...

ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00002-000

Thanks Danielle! Point 1 She claims that I provided no explanation of how the date is relevant. This is false. I claimed (and sourced the claim) that the education system has changed since those studies were published and also showed how inaccurate the studies were due to the fact that the percentage of people accounted for are 0.00000947368% of children! She drops this and merely claims that I fail to explain to explain how the date is relevant to the majority of her contentions. This is false as we can clearly see. She then makes a mathematical error in the dates. She claims that her sources are from 8 - 20 years ago. In fact that are from 8 - 26 years ago and I clearly sourced the claim that education and homework has significantly changed in the last 3 decades (see my source [2] from last round). She drops this. She falsely states that I must prove that homework assigned then vs now is different in quantity. This is, as I said, false. All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it’s harder. If it’s easier then the opposite is applicable. So the fact that the system of education was different then is a valid reason to consider her sources (at the least, the ones from 20+ years ago); the differences are too large to compare to the present. The fact that my sources are outdated is irrelevant as my intentions and uses of them are different. If I was using those sources for statistical evidence or about the education system (which she does) then outdated sources are unacceptable. If I’m using them for more generic purposes (which I am) then the date is not applicable as it does not affect my point. She cites some Con homework information in my source. I am aware that there is information in my source that I disagree with. I was using that source to reinforce a point that I agreed with in the source. I agree with some of the claims made however I disagree with the sources impact analysis and conclusion of information. Debaters are not expected to agree with everything said in every one of their sources. They are expected to agree with the statement that they are using the source to reinforce. [Counterplan] 1A. This is false. I never said that only beneficial homework is allowed. This would be ideal but not once in my counterplan was the word beneficial mentioned. In fact I only mentioned the word beneficial once in my entire round and it was not in the context in which my opponent states (anybody can check my clicking Ctrl f and searching the word beneficial whilst viewing the debate). 1B. Again, this seems to be a misinterpretation of the counterplan. I never mentioned that it had to be beneficial, nor did I say that beneficial things have to be mandatory. Here is a remind of my counterplan: Homework should be given in moderate quantity (in short). This is about homework QUANTITY (ie. how much homework is given) NOT homework QUALITY (ie. how beneficial it is). I extend the counterplan. I’ll drop the claim that she quasi concedes in order to continue onwards with the debate. I’ll allow voters to consider whether or not this should be viewed as a concession or not. Point 2 The point that she fails to see regarding the burden on parents is that it is in extremely low quantity and I provided accurate statistics showing that this was clearly a minority. The statistics clearly show that the majority of parents are satisfied with homework. Whether I can or can’t cite a court case regarding homework quantity is irrelevant. That argument was only made as an alternative to the counterplan. Since she fails to refute the counterplan, it still stands and due to this her entire objection is negated given that all homework will be reduced to a more suitable quantity. She persists the raise the objection that family time is lost. If anything, family time is created. It is a psychological truism that teenagers (on balance) become more distant from parents and others during this period of their lives, this means that they spend less time with their parents and family [1]. Homework often involves parents helping the child and parents interacting with the child, as she correctly in his initial arguments. We can conclude that since teenagers are distant from their parents and given that parents often involves themselves with their children family time is created indirectly through homework. Different students of different abilities will not take identical amounts of time which is why, within the status quo, there are sets which are based on examination and classwork. Depending on their abilities they are each set different amounts of homework so that it will fulfill a set amount of time [3]. Whilst students are more than welcome to spend additional time on homework, schools give recommended amounts of time and usually make this clear [4]. [2] The fact that parents help with homework is a good thing. The fact that they do it is not. Since setting is based on classwork and examination parents doing homework has no negative effects. The homeworks purpose is to show a child’s understanding of a topic and reinforce their knowledge of the topic from their classwork. If their parents do it then it is the same as what she proposes (ie. no homework) because they are not receiving the benefits that homework has to offer. For the students that actually do their homework, they are benefiting from homework. This contention presents no mitigation to my burden since all it does is show that some people aren’t doing homework and some are. Some people benefiting from homework is better than nobody benefiting from it. She says I dropped his argument regarding different home environments however the counterplan negates this without me having to address it since there will be a lower homework quantity this means that these people will not be overwhelmed with homework - homework is not used as a primary source of determining sets. Schools also take into account financial states [5]. She helps explain the very purpose of homework itself. She points out that homework cannot be monitored in regards to approach and therefore students may not grasp or understand the material properly. If they do not understand it and get all of the questions wrong (for example), then it is the teacher’s duty to correct the student and explain the homework to them. The lesson is designed to teach all students generally. The homework shows specific pupils progress and understanding of that lesson which teachers can then monitor and intervene if necessary in order to help said student to understand it properly [6]. There is a reason as to why it is a condition of the job. It allows teachers to have an individual understanding of a student’s grasp of the lesson so that they can help students that are struggling [6]. Point 3 The reason I asked for sourcing is because I wanted evidence that homework actually digs into and reduces the time that people spend on certain things. Often people can still do their one activity and also do other activities in the same amount of time that they usually would do even without having the first activity, so I was merely asking for confirmational purposes. The CP negates this point since these sources reference to there being too much time being spent on homework due to excessive quantity. The fact that these activities are provided in schools is NOT irrelevant due to the fact that IF you are buying her claim that homework cuts into activity time, students will not be missing out on these activities since they will be doing it in school. She makes a an argument riddled with fallacies. She claims that homework cuts into time for anything. The fact of the matter is that schools cuts into people’s time, work cuts into people’s time, sleep cuts into people’s time, etc. Should people stop going to school, work and stop sleeping in order to do activities? The answer that she will most likely give is no. So why is homework an exception? People still manage to have part time jobs within the status quo, in the UK homework is compulsory and there are a record number of students in part time jobs at the moment [7]. This completely negates my opponent’s claims of a supposed negative correlation. She misunderstands the counterplan. He says that I cannot ensure that less homework will be given by specific teachers. The counterplan is a proposed change in the status quo, thus making it a law for teachers to only be allowed to set a limited amount of homework. Point 4 1 - Homework counts for nothing and only is there to show a student’s understanding of a lesson. So whilst parents cheating is discouraged, it still has no negative benefits that give my opponent’s proposed changes any advantage over mine. 2 - There is no evidence presented in support of this claim. 3 - Whilst cheating can be the case and the same objection to 4 - 1 is applicable here. Her statistics are unreliable. They are posted on a forum site and a bias one too. The site stophomework.com. The website makes little attempt to give credibility to these statistics and the only effort made is where they provide 3 fake links that lead to nonexistent / fake pages. [Conclusion] She provides her sources in an external link which shows a poor demonstration of conduct. She set a character limit and this limit was violated. I have abided by the rules set and not attempted to bypass them in the way that she does. I ask that voters vote on the conduct point as this gave her additional space for rebuttals and gave me limited space for counter rebuttals. More generally, the decision is simple. A vote for the Con is clear at this point in the debate Sources [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bbc.in... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://dailym.ai...

ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00003-000

Thanks!Point 1Con claims that my research is outdated, however fails to explain how the date is relevant to the majority of my contentions. In fact data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides a good look at trends in homework (HW) for the past three decades, and concludes that today's students have had about the same amount of HW over the last 30 years [1]. This means all of my studies are relevant. I presented studies that collected data from more than 10,000 students nationwide between 1990 and 2002 [2]. The TIMSS report is from 2007 and covers 59 different countries [3]. Is research from the last 8-20 years really that off base? Con would have to prove that the amount of homework assigned then vs. now is drastic enough to make a difference, but he won't be able to.Con states that my research only includes a small portion of the population, and therefore this research is not valid. However this negates the very own research he presents. First, almost all of the "pro homework" studies cited by the CPE is research from the 1950s to 1990s, making Con's claim about my allegedly outdated research null and void. Second, Con does not prove that those studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason to believe that the pro-HW studies are any more valid. Con's very own source: "Information from international assessments shows little relationship between the amount of homework students do and test scores.""Kohn says... there is no conclusive evidence that homework provides any benefits—either academic or nonacademic—to students." "Homework also has potentially negative associations, one involving students' economic status.""Teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework.""Lower-achieving students may take more time than higher-achieving students to finish assignments" [3]. Indeed it would appear there is conflicting information, and there are some cases where homework could be beneficial. [ Re: Counterplan ]1A. Even if we accept HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will, in fact, be beneficial. 1B. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it ought to be required. Exercise, a healthy diet and a good amount of sleep are all beneficial to one's health and even education, as those factors affect one's academic performance [4, 5]. Schools can encourage these things in their facility, however in the home they rely on parents to do what's best for their children. As I mentioned in the last round, parents should determine or influence the way their kids learn or reinforce information in the home. If they want their kid to do homework, they can assign it or seek additional resources. In his Point 4 rebuttal, Con claims that HW is simply defined as “schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home" and my suggestion that it can sometimes be beneficial works as a concession. It does not. First, homework is uniform and I specifically advocated an assortment of assignments TBD by teachers, students and parents - not uniform HW. Second, Con must prove that homework ought to be required - that is mandated by the school/state. Again just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be required. Homework can be suggested, encouraged or even assigned, but not necessarily mandatory.Point 2My opponent claims that he "doesn't understand" how the backlash from parents over homework proves that homework is a burden on parents. It's self-evident. Parents complaining about the burden (to the point of going to court) proves it is in fact a burden. He then goes on to say that some parents don't mind homework, and claims he can cite court cases where parents have gone to court asking for homework and won. I would like my opponent to prove that he can cite court cases where parents have asked for more homework and won. He won't be able to, but even if he did, all this proves is that the parents who want homework should be able to give their kids homework, whereas those who don't shouldn't have to. Many parents secure tutors or prep classes for subjects and tests their kids need help with. This can replace homework for the parents who believe it is helpful, without placing an undue burden on teachers and other classmates/parents who feel otherwise. Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework, and in fact this was one of my contentions in the last round that Con dropped. We don't assign slower students longer school days, but we assign them longer homework days. Kids who struggle with their HW would spend a lot longer on their tasks than those who do not, meaning required HW is still problematic.Con requests sources proving that parents do homework: A survey from 2008 shows that 43% of parents have done their kid's homework [6]. It's nearly 80% of black and Hispanic parents who do their kid's HW one day per week, and more than 40% of them do it THREE or more times a week out of likely four assigned HW days [7]. It is around 36% for white students. This cheating does not foster independence, responsibility or honesty, nor does it provide any of the alleged benefits of homework to these students. My opponent has dropped my contention that each child has a different home environment. Whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to homework monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments. They cannot focus in their environments [8] which Con's own CPE source reiterates. Even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. My opponent claims that my research on the utility of homework is outdated (I've argued that his is outdated) and yet I also don't believe his citations account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information [8].Con argues it doesn't matter that teachers waste time grading homework because they know it is a condition of the job. That's fallacious circular reasoning. Just because something is a condition doesn't mean it ought to be a condition, which is exactly what I'm arguing (that it shouldn't be). I explained that teachers can use the time they spend grading homework to improve their own education (research, school or reading) or plan new and innovative lessons that provide more learning utility than homework. Point 3Con states that I have made the "unsourced" claim that by spending time on homework, kids are missing out on time spent on other things. Quite frankly it's ridiculous to ask for a citation on this self-evident fact. If someone spends time on X, they cannot spend time on Y. I'm not sure how that can be any more clear, but hopefully these sources will satiate Con's request [9, 10]. Here is another source claiming homework inhibits rest [11]. My opponent does not deny the utility of things like athletics, the arts, etc. but rather says they are provided in school (irrelevant) and that students already participate in after-school activities. But regardless of the amount of homework assigned, the time spent on HW interferes with other things whether it is rest, relaxation or other hobbies. Further, consider the fact that many older students work (or want to work) but can't as they must complete their "second shift" of homework after school. Most adults are not forced to complete work at home after their work day. Even if they were, adults have the option of getting a different job. Con advocates less HW but cannot ensure that less HW (and meaningful work) will actually be provided by the teachers that students cannot opt out of. Point 4Con writes, "Voters should NOT buy my opponent’s claim that it encourages cheating and creates a gap between the intelligent and academically struggling because this is once again bare assertion on my opponent’s behalf." 1 - Parents often do their kids homework (which is cheating).2 - Students cheat because they fear penalty of not completing their assignments from teachers and parents.3 - Grades, rather than education, have become the major focus of many students [12]. Computers can make cheating easier than ever before, and kids have unmonitored (and often unlimited) access to computers in the home. Students can download term papers from the world wide web. They can also take pictures of math calculations that not only provide the answer, but how they got the answer so the student is able to regurgitate it without any effort or learning on their part. Studies show cheating is more common than ever before [13, 14] which is obviously most problematic in the home. Research shows the lowest amount of students admitting to cheating on written assignments is 84 percent, and some data shows it as high as 95 percent [15]. ConclusionCon's point that homework can sometimes kinda sorta maybe be beneficial to some people does not mean it should be mandatory for all. Outside influences have too great an impact on the alleged benefits of HW. Students, parents and teachers can ASSIGN homework, encourage it, grade it but not REQUIRE it given all of the problematic variables. This allows for HW's benefits but also accounts for its problems.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...

9e812aed-2019-04-18T17:31:01Z-00002-000

I am going against marijuna being legal so I am con, against it. I think marijuna should not be legal because it is a drug. Well it might help if you have cancer. But only for a little. It is like numbing your mouth except its a drug. Marijuna is not going to stop you from dieing . Just from pain.

7f375877-2019-04-18T16:26:42Z-00001-000

I'm finding my opponents flipping of Pro to Con a bit hard to parse. Some parts could be construed to be speaking in the 3rd person, and other reference to me, Pro. If my opponent is not admitting to making a logical fallacy it may be in his best interest to clarify in the final round. If Con is attempting to accuse me of ignoring evidence Con will have to be more explicit because I could make the same accusation against Con given that Con is a biology student could be considered willful, but I will leave it up to the voters to conclude if it is acceptable ignorance, or a willful suppression fallacy. Since my opponent is a biology student, and has admitted that kin selection is in humans I would like to remind everyone of what kin selection is. "Kin Selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives even at a cost to their own survival, or reproduction."[15] My opponent is, most likely, correct in claiming that there is only one trait in humans that is subjected to kin selection. However that trait is so broad that it easily encompases my argument. That trait is altruism[16], and what is adoption if not an altruistic act. I would like to reiterate my claim about inheritance that my opponent is misrepresenting. I am not claiming homosexuality is genetic per say. I am claiming that it is epigenetic, and I provided a source in case he was unfamiliar since it wasn't until 2008 that a consensus definition of epigenetics even existed[17]. That wasn't even going to be done until the discovery of the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity traits from grandparent to grandchild in 2007[18]. It wouldn't even be that controversial to claim homosexuality to be epigenetic. To quote from a study on epigenetic models. "Our model predicts that sperm from the fathers with one or more [homosexual] daughters will differ from those with only heterosexual daughters by carrying unique (or statistically differentiated) epi-marks that influence the later stages of the androgen signaling pathway of the brain, or their expression is restricted to a subset of brain tissue, including sexually dimorphic nuclei that influence sexual orientation"[19] My opponents objection to my siafu comparison now appears to hinge on homosexuals choosing not to procreate with the opposite sex vs siafu not choosing. Claiming homosexual have a choice is a bold unsupported claim. A simple check of the most current evidence shows an interesting correlation. Gay women have a asymetrical brains like straight men, and gay men have symmetrical brains like straight women[20]. It appears the evidence suggests that sexuality isn't exactly a choice. I might agree that it is a choice if we were debating bisexuality, but we're not. Con hasn't been clear about what specifically he objects to with the occurrence of adoption, and insists that it is somehow "rare". The evidence shows that the occurrence of double orphans is hardly rare, and that we are just one natural or man made disaster away from being overwhelmed. Now Con appears to be claiming that homosexual relatives wouldn't adopt. Lets look at the evidence. The Administration for Children & Families shows that adoption by family is the prefered option for adoption in the US[21]. If con is attempting to claim that homosexuals wouldn't adopt. Then Con would have to explain why the homosexual community continues to fight to have, and keep their adoption rights[22]. If adoption didn't fulfil a biological, or psychological need then they wouldn't be fighting to keep it. In regards to the question to why aren't homosexuals just sterile it becomes simple logic. If someone were born heterosexual, but barren much of my argument would still apply to them. However, they have the cost of potentially occupying an otherwise fertile partner. A better question would be why aren't they asexual like Sir Isaac Newton[23]. That is easily addressed by looking at the difficulties single parents have in our societies. Of the three possible options homosexual adoption by a relative ensures the highest rate of success, and doesn't lock up any individuals intended for procreation. Con is wrong about the purpose of evolution. If evolution solely optimized for quantity multiple births would represent the majority of natural births, and women would have more than two breasts. As it stands over 95% of all births are singles for humans[24]. This is because humans are optimized for quality of children over quantity[25]. Because humans are optimized for quality any loss is devastating when compared to a species that is optimized for quantity, like rats. If having a homosexual child helps as insurance the survival of the grandchildren against natural, and manmade disasters then they are a natural, and essential part of the evolutionary process. Thank you, and I welcome my opponents final response. [15] http://www.princeton.edu... [16] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [17] http://genesdev.cshlp.org... [18] http://www.pbs.org... [19] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [20] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [21] https://www.childwelfare.gov... [22] http://abcnews.go.com... [23] http://www.nndb.com... [24] http://www.cdc.gov... [25] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

9c5e5ad8-2019-04-18T16:53:17Z-00005-000

We are not omnivores. Humans are most often described as "omnivores." This classification is based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, "observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most "natural" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly "behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods

68a4d029-2019-04-18T16:39:32Z-00001-000

School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework will reap great rewards such as a favourable test score or report card. Why are we posing such a ludicrous question about the possible abolishment of homework if doing homework is what it takes to succeed in school? It is a common emotion to students regarding the distaste of homework, but legions of teachers know better because they recognize the importance of homework in the success of students in school and outside of school. Not only does homework accomplishment benefit the student, it also benefits the teacher as well. Teachers receive the opportunity to see at what stage the student is by assigning homework. Furthermore, the teacher can identify the weaknesses of the student so they can ameliorate their study habits in hopes of pulling their grades up. On the other hand, if teachers were to abandon the idea of homework altogether, they would have to base the majority of the student's mark on tests alone. However, students fare much better in the homework column than the test column; otherwise, their marks would be lower Conclusively,that is the reason it should not be banned

554b18a0-2019-04-18T11:17:46Z-00001-000

Ok you bring up some valid points there. I'm, Going to have to succumb to defeat on this debate, My opponent has proven that social media is NOT for losers. I admit defeat in this debate, Let my opponent be victorious

4b1fdac3-2019-04-18T20:00:44Z-00002-000

If you wish to have a debate with me about the Federal Reserve, please, define what you really mean by your position before you challenge me to a debate. The title and opening line of the debate seems to give the impression that the U.S. should either have a central bank, the Federal Reserve, or it should not. I did not come to debate a change in the running of the Federal Reserve because that is not what the title of this debate implies. So far, you have put together no support for your argument and failed to define what your position is. You cannot say you maintain the same side as crutherford because you are not him. I wonder if you actually read crutherford's arguments, because he clearly did not believe that the federal reserve had a purpose and should simply be turned into a government organization (which it already is). Look at the Act he quotes. I would ask you to read up on the federal reserve before debating me instead of simply repeating some general rhetoric you may have heard. I believe in order to have a real debate, my opponent must have at least a partial knowledge of the topic and a definite position. This is an either/or argument: Either the federal reserve should exist or it shouldn't. My question to my opponent is what side are you on, and why.

b9d69b32-2019-04-18T14:57:02Z-00003-000

Grades should be abolished because they demotivate children towards studies. An extra-ordinary student or someone intelligent student would it totally against the students of intelligent class. It is like giving some special treatment to a majority of students. If I had been HRD Minister, my first work would have been replacing this grading system.

e1ec511c-2019-04-18T12:54:27Z-00002-000

People are not born gay, but rather gay people recruit. Gay is defined by Merriam-Webster as "happy and excited; cheerful and lively." Prefer this definition because my opponent didn't offer a definition, thus we must choose this one. Even if you think that the website my opponent cited in their last round was a definition, you should still prefer my definition because it was a more credible source and it is the more commonly used definition (as opposed to the slang that my opponent uses it as). So it doesn't make sense that people would be born gay. In fact, nearly all babies cry at birth. That's not a sign of cheerful and lively people! It is also the case that people can control their emotions and cheer themselves up. They can become gay, but are not born so. Gay people do recruit. In fact, many websites exist trying to recruit happy people because they perform better. And once those happy people are there, they would recruit other happy people. Studies also show that being around cheerful people makes us more cheerful. So in a sense, they are recruiting simply by being gay. Please vote pro! Thank you.

ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00001-000

Con argues not voting is a valid political choice and I agree. In compulsory voting countries the ballot usually has an option to represent a non-vote for voters who are not sure. I argue CV would secure every citizen a vote, ensuring proper representation from their government. There are also a few other logical benefits from CV. We know that discouraged and poor aren't voting in non-CV countries. Why not put in place a system where these underrepresented groups are assured a vote. Australia, a CV-Country, votes on Sundays and even accepts doctors notes to ensure fairness. The right not to vote shouldn't be mistaken as "your vote doesn't matter". CV may infringe on a persons fundamental freedom a little, maybe its worth it.

6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00001-000

Number one the average weight thing is useless because in hockey there is more acceleration and less mass. You said you self there is less friction on ice so when skating at high speed's in the intent of hinting that person they are basically a speeding torpedo. I should have said this before in Football you get tackled in OPEN field but in hockey your pined between two hard places.Yes Hockey players have less fan's but more crazy fan's https://video.search.yahoo.com... in Vancouver so you have that presser on you and this goes for all team's. You also said that Football player's have less privacy well really for both sport's it's about the same it's really about the most famous player's. Finally this is how hard to get into the NHL. Out of 30,000 kid's in Ontario Canada are selected and studied 48 get drafted, out of that 48 only 39 end up signing a contracted. Out of that 39 only 32 actually play in the NHL and only 15 play more then one season. But out of that 15 only 6 play 400 games which is the amount of games to by able to play that NHL position.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00002-000

Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are "checked, slashed, etc." this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00002-000

== Rebuttal == (1) DefinitionsPro's changing his advocacy. He was arguing that euthanasia as "the painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease. " This isn't limited to people unable to commit suicide on their own. This includes anyone with an incurable and painful disease. Don't let Pro change his advocacy now after he's argued the entire debate -- including his definitions in Round 1 -- that euthanasia is available to anyone with an incurable and painful disease. (2) SuicidePro's case hinges on restricting euthanasia to people unable to commit suicide. I argue that anyone who can communicate has the ability to commit suicide. If you can communicate, then you can refuse medical treatment, and you can refuse food/water. That's enough to commit suicide. The only way that suicide isn't an option is if someone cannot communicate. But if someone cannot communicate, then they're not able to request euthanasia, meaning that euthanasia isn't available to them. Thus, Pro's position that euthanasia is only available to those who can't commit suicide is incoherent, since voluntary euthanasia simply cannot be available to those who can't communicate. Pro's version of euthanasia is underinclusive. If euthanasia is justified on autonomy grounds (i. e. self-determination), then euthanasia should be extended to anyone who wants it. But in Pro's world, euthanasia is only extended to those who cannot communicate (i. e. those who cannot kill themselves). Thus, Pro's version of euthansia is underinclusive in that most people with an incurable and painful disease can't request euthanasia because they're able to kill themselves. I argue Pro's version of a euthanasia law is totally superfluous, since nobody qualifies for Pro's "euthanasia only for people who can't commit suicide" law. (3) Health ResourcesPro seems to misunderstand my argument. I'm weighing "lower waiting times" against "increased suicides" (i. e. more people choosing euthanasia). In weighing these impacts, there's two things voters should consider: probability and magnitude. The probability for increased suicides (i. e. more euthanasia) is higher than for lower waiting times because lower waiting times are a result of more euthanasia. I win probability. Increased suicides is also of greater magnitude. Lower waiting times has a marginal effect on the quality of healthcare, while increased suicides means more people dead, earlier, when they still had things to live for. More suicides means families left behind hurt by the suicide. My argument is about weighing "lower waiting times" against its necessary cause -- increased suicides -- and arguing that increased suicides outweigh lower waiting times. Pro also misunderstands my argument that economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions. The decision to request euthanasia should not turn on your feeling of being a financial burden. Pro's logic suggests that someone who's considering euthanasia should consider -- as part of their moral decision to commit suicide -- the resources they'll free up. That's extremely slippery logic that leads down a path to straight utilitarianism. In effect, it equates economic thinking with moral thinking. I'm arguing against utilitarianism, and I'm arguing that weighing goods like "life" against goods like "lower waiting times" simply shouldn't be part of a person's decision to commit suicide (i. e. to end their life). (4) ProhibitionsFirst, innocents charged for "assisted dying" aren't committing euthanasia; they're "assisting dying. " Second, these "innocents" aren't being convicted of anything, so there's no harm. Pro hasn't shown any harm to innocents, so there's no impact to this argument. Unless there's actual harm to innocents, Pro loses this argument. (5) RightsPro misunderstands the nature of euthanasia. The law isn't about granting or denying rights to patients. Euthanasia doesn't give patients a right to die -- patients are already free to die, by committing suicide, refusing medical treatment, and so on. What euthanasia laws do is empower doctors. I want to be clear about this. The right granted by euthanasia is the right to kill -- and it's a right given to doctors, not patients. I argue that the right to kill shouldn't be granted. I argue that, as a legal principle, there shouldn't be a right to kill (that's effectively murder), and that consent on the part of the victim shouldn't be a defense. Just as a contract regarding slavery isn't and shouldn't be recognized by the law, neither should the law recognize a contract where one person kills another who has agreed to be killed. That's simply not a right that the law should recognize. On the other hand, I agree with Pro that the law should recognize a right to commit suicide, and a right to refuse medical treatments. Those are valuable rights that preserve bodily integrity and freedom, and it's important to preserve those rights while keeping euthanasia illegal. == My Case ==(1) Suicide is and should be legal. That is the only right to die that the law can enshrine. Empowering people to intentionally kill another isn't a right and it shouldn't be enshrined in the law. (2) Pro's euthanasia law undermines equality by restricting euthanasia to certain people. The result is that euthanasia sends a message that some people's lives are expendable and other people's lives aren't expendable. In effect, some people are deemed inferior to others and therefore their life isn't give the full protection of the law. Pro doesn't dispute this. Instead, he just argues that the argument is invalid because of assisted suicide but that doesn't solve his problem. Assisted suicide -- at least as I propose it -- should be extended to all (plus I dropped assisted suicide, implying I'm not supporting it for this debate, and only supported it because of a misunderstanding). Pro also agrees that human life is valuable in and of itself, so any law that allows killing of someone people demeans the inherent value of human life, thereby demanding equality. (3) Pro hasn't given any reason to believe the slippery slope won't happen. I've given both a theoretical and empirical reason to believe it will: (a) the logic used to justify euthanasia (easing someone's suffering; lower waiting times) seems to justify involuntary euthanasia, and (b) empirically, there's evidence the slippery slope is probable because it happened in the Netherlands. Pro gives no counters other than simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and a "red herring," but simply calling my argument a "fallacy" and "red herring" doesn't refute it. Pro needed to actually explain why my argument is theoretically and empirically wrong by giving analytic and empirical reasons of his own. Pro didn't do this, so I win this point. (4) Pro says the "rate of euthananized people is too small for this to have an impact on the research. " Pro also says the "impact" is too speculative. If that's true, then apply that logic to Pro's "lower waiting times" argument: euthanasia has no effect on waiting times because the effect of euthanasia on the economy is negligible, and moreover, the impacts are too speculative to have any relevance in this debate. Pro's argument about "research" not factoring into moral decisions simply isn't the reality of the world we live; I agree that'd be nice, but as things are, research and development is dictated by the economy, the flows of demand and supply. == Conclusion ==Euthanasia undermines equality, corrupts the medical profession, deprives suicide of meaning, and leads to a number of unintended consequences (including involuntary euthanasia). The alternatives are much better. The status quo, where euthanasia is simply illegal, is a much better option than euthanasia. On the other hand, making deadly drugs available to everyone is better than euthanasia as well, since it promotes Pro's value -- autonomy -- more than under my Pro's model. My proposal has all the benefits of euthanasia, but it also has other benefits, such as not undermining equality, not leading to involuntary euthanasia, and not corrupting the medical profession. The key problem with euthanasia is that it empowers doctors to intentionally kill patients. And just as contracts for slavery aren't allowed, contracts allowing murder shouldn't be allowed. Again, thanks for the debate, Pro.

2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00005-000

I will support my contention, that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized, with the following arguments: 1. The right to die and self determination 2. Wasted health resources and public funds 3. Prohibition targets innocents There are other arguments, but I believe the following arguments should satisfy the reader to conclude that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legal. 1. The right to die and self determination I would like to highlight articles 5 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]: Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression Bob Dent, who was euthanatized, said it best: "What right has anyone […] to demand that I must behave according to their rules? " That's the point I want to make. While I strongly don't agree that someone should give up hope and be euthanatized, but this is neither my decision nor yours. We must respect people's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them. People who are terminally ill suffer significantly. If they voluntarily, repeatedly and freely make the decision to end their lives, we have no right to deny them that right. Doing so will deny them their right for self-determination and will subject them to pain against their will. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds Euthanasia would free up doctors, nurses and hospital beds. These scarce resources would then be deployed to assist those who are in need, reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care [3]. To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. 3. Prohibition targets innocents In Ireland, Marie Fleming was denied the right to end her life. Her partner was told that he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die! [4] A Pennsylvania woman was charged with murder for assisting her 93 year old father commit suicide [5]. Rebuttal a. Equality issues? My opponent stated that "limiting euthanasia to the terminally ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't". This argument is similar to saying that designating parking spots for the disabled sends a message that disabled people are inferior. But this is simply not true… disabled people are the ones who requested to be accommodated; they in fact feel insulted when their voices are not heard. The same goes with the terminally ill requesting the right to euthanasia. They argue that the value of human life is not determined by the government, but by the individuals themselves. They can judge for themselves if their life is expendable or not, not the government. My opponent also claimed that "legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value". He argued "Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? " I disagree. I argue that my opponent is confusing the objective human worth and subjective self worth. Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we must view all humans as equals in dignity and rights [1]. This is the objective view of human worth. A terminally ill person is just as valuable as a healthy person. However, we have no jurisdiction to define the subjective self worth (or instrumental value) of any individual… that would be determined by the individuals themselves. b. Unintended consequences? My opponent also warned of the risk of the slippery slope. He wondered if Euthanasia was legalized: "what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia"? While this is a very common challenge to legalization of euthanasia, it's actually a red herring! Every argument has its own merits and reasons. Non-voluntary euthanasia (or non-consensual euthanasia) may or may not have its own merits and should be discussed separately. My opponent was also concerned that people may be euthanatized incorrectly by a doctor. However, he hasn't provided any evidence for this possibility. Under the Dutch law, the following conditions must be fulfilled [6]: - The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement - The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time - The request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs - The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options - There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above I argue that such measures are very responsible and would significantly reduce any potential doctor error. c. Corruption? My opponent stated that Euthanasia "invalidates the Hippocratic Oath. " I challenge my opponent to state which parts of the oath euthanasia allegedly invalidates. There are several parts of the oath that actually supports euthanasia [7]: "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required. " "I will remember that […] that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug" "…But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. " I argue that my opponent's claim actually supports my contention, not weaken it! My opponent also argued that euthanasia transforms the role of the doctor to "priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide" and that "state sanctifies the intentional killing of another human being" There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is that my opponent suggested that the intentional killing is always evil or wrong. But this is not true when it comes to euthanasia. I've already demonstrated that the voluntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients is not evil, but merciful. The second problem is that doctors perform euthanasia with full conscience and out of profound interest in helping their patients. Doctor's don't grant any absolution or lack their off. They simply help their patients end their suffering. My opponent also suggested that "euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care". I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for this claim. The number of patients who request euthanasia is very limited, and there's no reason to believe that this claim is true. d. Suicide and Unnecessary? Let me start by agreeing with my opponent on the legalization of assisted suicide. (In my opening argument I stated Euthanasia (or assisted suicide)). I do agree that's assisted suicide is a better option for those who are able to receive lethal pills and administer it themselves. However, how about those who don't have the means to commit suicide? Tony Nicklinson was denied his bid to die [4]. He was suffering from "locked in" syndrome and was living "a living nightmare". It was so horrific that he decided to starve himself to death and died after a week without food. Also Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days. She realized that her suicide route was even more harmful that she gave it up and suffered in agony again. My opponent mentioned that patients have the right to refuse treatment. In light of the two examples before, and the amount of suffering it takes until someone finally dies, you couldn't possibly agree that this is a viable option! I also strongly disagree with my opponent's idea to make deadly pills available to the public. What would prevent someone from purchasing them to murder others? It has to be monitored to avoid abuse. Also, its ease of access could have people kill themselves because they were having a bad day! Euthanasia and assisted suicide is only provided to patients who frequently and persistently request it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://listverse.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00004-000

Now I agree with you in everyway on this don't get me wrong, but the problem is we cannot force obese people or people who will become obese to change their ways. They have to change for themselves or they have to want to change otherwise they will just keep going back or finding different ways to get the food they want. If we say no you cannot have this or stop serving obese people fast food.. will that stop them? No they will find someone to buy it for them or sneak it one way or another. We can overall help them and make it easier for them and also harder to get certain foods but in the end it is up to the person whether they want to fix their lifestyle or not., I would like to take the time to thank my opponent for offering this debate and to anyone who is reading this. Thank you.

2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00001-000

yes they have to do something but we have to urge them to do something no one will just get up and do it we the people have to help with obesity

aedf4296-2019-04-18T18:38:32Z-00000-000

You start of with this:"http://1.bp.blogspot.com... shows a graph proving that every time minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up too. (it's recent to it applies more)."The graph does NOT prove that every time minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up. It only shows the connection between minimum wage increases and TEENAGE unemployment. Furthermore, even this correlation doesn't seem to be a very strong one. The teenage unemployment rate keeps going up and down, up and down, while the minimum wage steadily increases in a stair-like pattern. The two do not coincide."Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like your goal is to prove Milton wrong, not me wrong."In Round 2, you used Milton Friedman's video as the entire basis for your argument. When that video is the argument, naturally that is what I will rebut. When you defend him, I am going to counter. The focus on Friedman in this debate is not my doing."Minimum wage doesn't mean slave wages! I have said this you aren't debunking me! Here's why you wont get them, 1. you will get paid as much as the employer thinks you are 2. you can always say NO to a lower wage."I'm not even sure what to make of this. I take it that the gist of your argument is this: without a minimum wage, the employer will simply pay you what he thinks you're worth, and if it is too low you can simply say "no."Unfortunately, this is not the case. The workers that have minimum wage jobs don't really have many options. Because of their situation, many of these workers wouldn't be able to say "no", even if the wages weren't enough to properly live. The presence of a minimum wage prevents employers from exploiting these workers that would be practically forced to accept whatever they can get."Yes making 2.50 is better then zero, but when minimum wage increases then your profit becomes lower and will eventually become negative you to fire workers, in turn increasing unemployment."Back to your pizza parlour example: minimum wage does not increase randomly. It increases with rising costs. As costs rise, the cost of the pizza in your pizza parlour would also rise. And whereas you made $10 in that hour, you would now make $12. As a result, the minimum wage would NOT exceed the profit and become negative. Simply because minimum wage doesn't increase while everything else is stagnant. It all increases together."Well yes their will always be peer-reviewed papers on either side, but there are more on mine. Here's one on my side: http://www.epi.org... i said, there's some on each side."When it comes to this article, I suppose I should thank you for not actually reading it. Because this article supports MY side of the argument.Quote from the article: "Without more examination, this observation is as useful in understanding state job markets as noting that joblessness has been on the rise in New York since the last time the Yankees won the World Series. It might be true, but it doesn’t mean one is causing the other."This is something I've been pointing out all along. Correlations DO NOT show causation.Here's another quote from the article:"Contrary to Garthwaite’s oversimplification of the employment picture in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, some key facts about these states show that a number of factors unrelated to minimum wage increases are actually responsible for high unemployment rates."It goes on to list the actual factors responsible for unemployment. But I think the main thing here, is that even YOUR link proves my point. The minimum wage didn't cause unemployment. Unemployment was caused by other factors. Minimum wage was just unlucky enough to have a correlation with unemployment rates. But, to repeat again, correlations do not show causation.Your example with the minimum wage earners not paying taxes and getting arrested is so ridiculous, that I am not even going to bother with a rebuttal."Heres a page that says minimum wage is good for a worker (wage wise) and bad for buissnes"Yes, this is obvious. Businesses would love to pay workers even less than minimum wage if they could get away with it. But if the minimum wage (which is always very low in comparison to everyone else's salary) is enough to force a business to close, then that business must've been a terrible one. In fact, a business that makes so little revenue to allow a minimum wage to bring it down is a business that would most certainly fail regardless of a minimum wage.Businesses have already shown in the past that they will exploit workers and pay them less than is needed to survive. A minimum wage is needed to stop this exploitation."A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans."The incentive to replace workers with machines is one that will always be present. A minimum wage actually plays no role in this. The cost-efficiency, quality control and speed of machines will always appeal to businesses, even if there was no minimum wage. This is demonstrated by technology replacing jobs in countries without a minimum wage.http://www.converge.org.nz..."Here's another one that says it's hard to set the minimum wage anyway. Sice cost of living is diffrent everywhere you can't really tell wat is a good wage, making it inneffecient and in some cases bad."That is precisely why the minimum wage is different depending on the location.http://www.dol.gov...So this example makes no sense. The minimum wage for LA is not going to be the same as the one in Arkansas.In short, the presence of a minimum wage does NOT lead to unemployment. Even when you presented correlations and articles, all of those revolved around TEENAGE unemployment. I have shown the real reasons why teenage unemployment has risen. Furthermore, people ages 16-19 aren't the ones that we need to focus on when it comes to unemployment. But I suppose when it came to regular unemployment, the people that are anti minimum wage didn't really have a correlation, so they had to resort to some post hoc analysis to find a correlation somewhere. That's why all of those correlations are just based on teens.As I've said before, having a minimum wage is a good thing. It stops the exploitation of workers by companies. It also helps the taxpayers. With a minimum wage, the burden of providing for low income families rests more on the shoulders of the companies. Without a minimum wage, that burden goes to social welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. People making minimum wage may still need social assistance, but at least the burden is now shared. If businesses were able to pay even less than the minimum wage, more of the burden would fall on the taxpayers shoulders.Both the peer-reviewed article I posted, AND the one posted by my opponent clearly show that minimum wage does not cause unemployment. In summary, the presence of a minimum wage is needed. That's why we have one.

aedf4296-2019-04-18T18:38:32Z-00002-000

"The funny thing is you arguing against Milton Friedman and he has a Nobel prize in economics."It is true that Milton Friedman won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (actual Nobel Prize categories are only for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace). However, just because he won this prestigious prize, often associated with the Nobel prizes, this does not mean that Milton Friedman is infallible.After all, Milton Friedman also came up with the notion of the negative income tax. This is a social welfare program that would pay poorer families the difference of a minimum income to survive, regardless of employment. Most economists believe that instituting this proposed policy would skyrocket the unemployment rate. The reasoning is that poorer families would actually be given an incentive to quit and rake in a similar income without working.Now I know that this goes off on a tangent, but I had to bring up the Negative Income Tax to prove a point. That point: Milton Friedman is not infallible! Even he can be wrong, despite the Sveriges Riksbank Prize."And you also say all he talks about are teenagers, but he is talking about minorities too so you need to listen more clearly."He mentions minorities towards the end of the video. But the only numbers he gives apply to teenagers. There are no numbers given to back up his other claims.Furthermore, at the end of the video, he is asked if there are ANY benefits to a minimum wage. He says that there are "none whatsoever." Even those articles from people that oppose minimum wage often weigh the pros and the cons, and the pro side of the column is never blank. Extreme viewpoints on either side of the spectrum are pretty much always wrong. And Friedman stating that there is absolutely no benefit at all from minimum wage is definitely an extreme viewpoint. Because the view is so extreme, we must conclude that it too is wrong.On Teenage UnemploymentThis is an article from the New York Times:http://www.nytimes.com...This article shows that there are other explanations for teenage unemployment.Two of the best reasons given:The recession has recent college graduates taking jobs that would've typically gone to teenagers. That leads to less teens having a job.Dean Baker, the Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, claims that teenagers' abilities to rely on family allow them to be pickier about jobs. I think this is true. Times have changed over the years, and people rely more and more on their parents for a longer period of time. This trend is obvious now, but was not obvious back when Friedman made that video. So he attributed the teenage unemployment rate to minimum wage. But, as I stated before, correlations DO NOT show causation. "you use the example of slaves. that was much earlier then this film, so your example is very improbable."When I speak of people working for "slave wages", I hope the voters are intelligent enough to realize that I am not taking about slavery.On your "pizza parlor" exampleIf you could make $10 in an hour while you work, and could pay someone $7.50 to sweep, so that you bring in $2.50 profit, this is something any intelligent businessman WOULD do. Making $2.50 is better than making zero. That is a basic business principle. If, after all expenses, you wind up with a total profit of one penny or more, you do it. Your reluctance to take the $2.50 profit only shows a flaw in your reasoning."If they were paid 2.50$ they would pay little to no taxes each tax season, but when you are paid 7.50$ you get taxes, and when you make that little you don't want the taxes."I think you overestimate the value of $7.50 an hour. It is still barely enough to support a single person. And anyone that would rather get paid $2.50 an hour without taxes is someone that must be terrible at math."The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs."You then elaborate on this point, and explain the reasoning. But here is a link to a peer-reviewed journal article that shows that minimum wage DOES NOT increase unemployment.https://udrive.oit.umass.edu...Here is a quote from the article:"The large negative elasticities in the traditional specification are generated primarily by regional and local differences in employment trends that are unrelated to minimum wage policies."If you read through the study, it shows that minimum wage and minimum wage increases do not affect employment trends. On your linksThe first link you provide can be dismissed on its ludicrous claims alone. The author of that article believes that a minimum wage of $107/hour or $500/hour would follow the same type of reasoning as a minimum wage of $4.65/hour. This is clearly a ridiculous notion. His "point" of why stop at $5? Why not $50? $100? etc. is clearly idiotic and I think most reasonable people will conclude that it is NOT the same thing.The second link you claim is from "a [business] standpoint." First off, this "[business] standpoint" is from a ministry. The page is filled with bible quotes. Getting your economic policies from the bible is not what I would perceive as a business standpoint. Furthermore, it says "If you do the math, you’ll see that raising the minimum wage is not good for the poor or for businesses." Yet it gives no numbers for people to "do the math." Maybe the assumption is that some bible quotations are a good substitute for mathematics.ConclusionWorkers here are ALWAYS going to require more money than illegal immigrants or outsourced workers in poorer countries. The presence or absence of a minimum wage does not and will not change that.In fact, the "outsourced" jobs have to be over-the-phone jobs (you can't get someone living in India to clean the toilets). These over-the-phone jobs are often commission based (i.e. no salary). Without the salary, there is no minimum wage for these jobs. Americans can compete just as easily. But Americans will not work for the low commission, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABLE TO. So the point about outsourcing is simply false. Commission based jobs are not required to pay minimum wage. Taking away a minimum wage doesn't affect these jobs at all.When it comes to big business, past experience has shown that they will abuse the labor market and exploit workers if given a chance. Workers need a minimum amount of income to survive.When it comes to unemployment, the peer-reviewed article shows that minimum wage doesn't affect unemployment. When given a choice between a ministry article, some guy that thinks a $500 minimum wage is the same as a $5 minimum, a YouTube video, and a peer-reviewed journal article, I go with the peer-reviewed article.The internet is filled with ideas and opinions on every topic. Anyone can always find a website that supports his or her own views. With so many viewpoints, all of them with a site, we must decipher which source is the most reliable.No matter how intelligent someone may be, or what prizes the person has won, VALID ideas accepted in a particular discipline come from peer-reviewed journal articles. They do not come from blogs, or personal websites.A minimum wage stops big companies from exploiting its workers. And when it comes to social welfare programs, a minimum wage places more of a burden on the big companies and less of a burden on the taxpayers.The negative effects of unemployment are a myth. Correlations DO NOT show causation.

66a791f0-2019-04-18T15:26:31Z-00002-000

Thanks for the topic, Pro. My opponent case is easily countered by either a.) dismissing or revising the Hippocratic oath (as this sole justification seems rather arbitrary when considering the quality of life of millions) or still less controversially b.) that doctors need not administer active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia does not violated the Hippocratic oath or Canada's criminal code, so my opponent's resolution has already been adequately countered. I will still further this by suggesting the legitimate option of providing non-physicians whose sole responsibility would oversee and participate in active euthanasia. This successfully counters my opponents sole contention regarding the role of the doctor in euthanasia. I remind my opponent that no new evidence or contentions can be ethically introduced in the final round.

43a5f7e-2019-04-18T14:05:26Z-00001-000

"Honestly, you coul'd be vegan i dont care that your, freedom right. I dont know if your trying to force veganism on people because if so that violationg the first amendment." Con Not trying to force, convince of your own free will. If I was trying to force, the resolution would be veganism should be forced upon 99% of adult humans. Instead the resolution is at least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. I. Health II. Environment III. Animal happiness IV. World Hunger V. Links I. Health It is well known that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Vegan diets exclude many foods yet allow fruits in vegetables. Therefore, its only logical that most vegans will eat more fruits and vegetables thus being healthier. A multivitamin can take care of any nutrient deficiencies met on a vegan diet. II. Environment Claim: Meat is wasteful compared to grain. Warrant:"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [2]. Impact: A vegan diet takes less acreage compared to an omnivorous diet. Helping save the environment. III. Animal happiness Animals are sentient and capable of feeling emotions like happiness and unhappiness. Factory farming is infamous for being cruel. Since the profit motive is at work it will always be cheaper to raise an animal in inhumane conditions like battery cages. "In the wake of an ABC News investigation into alleged unsanitary and inhumane practices at one of the nation's largest egg farms, animal rights activists are calling for an end to the egg industry's widespread use of so-called "battery cages," in which birds live six to a cage in long stacks of wire cages. "[3]. Being confined to battery cages cause unhappiness to animals. IV. World Hunger In part II Environment acreage was mentioned. The grain lots feeding farm animals could be re-purposed to feed hungry humans. [2]. Claim: World hunger exists today Warrant: "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 805 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2012-2014." [3]. Impact: World hunger could be mitigated if more people decided to turn vegan. At least 99% of human adults should eat vegan in the entire world. Vote Pro. V. Links 2. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 3. http://www.worldhunger.org...

1d95bd3f-2019-04-18T13:40:48Z-00004-000

Well for one thing school uniforms make everything more bland which in this case is good, you wouldn't be distracted by all the fancy clothing kids wear. Second uniforms would cut down on a lot of bullying, because everybody is wearing the same clothes if someone makes fun of your outfit they are at the same time making fun of theirs. Second it makes it way easier to make sure that people aren't being inappropriate with their clothes, like no bra and a see through shirt. It really makes it easier to pick clothes for school which would cut down on stress levels with teens.