Question: Should insider trading be allowed?

Politicians should not be allowed to personally benefit from legislation they vote for or draft The speaker has given up already. The pro speaker has yet to come up with any real argument in support for the resolution. I will also skip this round as the burden of proof lies with the pro side.

Betting Betting should not be allowed because it hurts people's lives. Unless someone is very good at betting, one can lose thousands, maybe even a lifetime worth of money! On the other hand, those who are good at betting, are opportunists who take advantage of others misfortune! Those who lose all their money hurt their families and may end up without a home, or at least very poor. We should end betting in order to preserve people's lives. This would also decrease taxes because welfare spending would be lessened. This would include food stamps, shelters and other welfare efforts. Decreasing welfare would allow spending in needed areas or toward the debt. Therefore, making betting illegal will decrease welfare spending and increase people's lives.

DEBATE 500: Business Discrimination IntroductionUnless we accept that people have the right to other people's services, discrimination is not problematic. Since we do not have the inherent right to other people's labor or trade, there is no breach of rights when a service or trade is denied -- regardless of why that service or trade was denied. *** As a consumer, I am free to discriminate on the basis of anything I see fit. I can choose whichever restaurant or ice cream parlor I'd like to frequent for any reason -- or I can choose to avoid them for any reason. If I am a bigot, racist or otherwise, my ignorance and hatred is not legally held against me. I do not have to engage with everyone, and I can avoid businesses and people that I do not wish to trade with. Yet as a business owner, I do not have that luxury. I would not be free to discriminate and I would not have the same right to freedom of association. This does not seem righteous, practical, or fair. The Role of Government"You and I disapprove of bigotry. But the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things we do not approve. Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own. Pluralism means eschewing the use of political power as a means for 'correcting' those values. The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas -- like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally. Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent" [1]. But calling on government to purify others' minds and hearts is not not admirable; instead it is a gross injustice that oversteps the responsibilities of government. The government exists to protect people's rights, and people do not have the right to other people's services or labor. People do have the right to decide whom they want to trade with. There are many things that people do in society which I do not agree with, i.e., smoking cigarettes or having unprotected sex. Yet no matter how repugnant or unsatisfactory I might find other people's choices, I should not use the government as an oppressive tool to forcefully dictate their behavior. Only aggressive behavior that directly harms another's life, health or property should be restricted by government force. Discrimination is not overtly aggressive, and it is not always harmful. Anti-Discrimination LawsTo combat discrimination, the government has imposed unnecessary measures of aggression through anti-discrimination laws. This violates people's rights and forces them to ignore or disregard information that is pertinent to their decisions -- even if it is rational or justified. The establishment of anti-discrimination laws suggests a push toward no discrimination at all. Yet that would not be moral or pragmatic in our society. While the beginning of these measures were narrowly defined, the demographics have expanded to include age, disability, sexuality, the potential for pregnancy and other things. There seems to be no end in sight to what can be included; social status and even attractiveness have been mentioned [2]. Why Discriminate?In most cases, discrimination is not economically practical. It usually results in the loss of profit, so most people do not engage in such practices. This means even if people were legally allowed to discriminate, many would choose not to. Yet there are a few reasons some people choose not to trade with others. A. Ideological DifferencesIt is reasonable to understand why a Jewish baker would not want to bake a Nazi's wedding cake, or why a black mechanic would not want to service a Klansman's car. The USFG imposes economic sanctions, which are financial restrictions against a targeted group, product or country of which it does not approve. Why then couldn't an individual or business group do the same? In some cases, trading with another individual or firm qualifies as condoning or not standing up for one's most important values. This raises significant concerns for a multiple civil liberties violations - including freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to name a few [3]. B. Rational DiscriminationRational discrimination describes discrimination on the basis of characteristics which may be correlated with preservation of rational self-interest. In other words, it describes when discrimination is justified with reasonable cause. For example, if one notices that black communities are associated with high crime rates, one might discriminate and not venture into black communities to sell door-to-door. This decision would certainly be discriminatory; however, it would also be justified. All that matters in this context is that race and crime are somehow correlated -- they tend to occur together for some reason, and that reason may or may not be known. If I am not writing an academic paper or researching the deeper issues, it doesn't matter. Regardless of the underlying reason or sociological root cause, I might choose to avoid selling door-to-door in black communities to protect myself based on what I do know -- and to do so would not necessarily be an injustice. I would merely be implementing the science of statistical inference and probability. Moreover, my discrimination would not have the intent to cause any harm, but only to protect myself. In choosing to not trade with Person A within the inner city, I will lose out on the potential profit of that deal -- but I will also not expose myself to any potential risk of that deal. If we do not consider our rational self-interest in making deals, we are not weighing the cost-benefit analysis correctly. So to reiterate, many standards for discrimination make perfect sense. Consider businesses that have signs saying, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" and discriminate based on clothing. In this case, violations of dress code could pose health or safety concerns. However some places of business look to service or not service particular demographics for less practical reasons. For instance, some social clubs, spas or sporting clubs and facilities prefer to be exclusive to one particular sex. Yet anti-discrimination laws prohibit these types of groups from existing. If men want to golf vs. other men exclusively, it would make sense to allow an all-male country club. But women could sue these businesses for not allowing their equal participation, despite the demand for an all-male facility. It would make sense for a business owner to satiate their customer's demands for profit, yet the law prohibits them from doing so in many cases. Federal FundingTo be clear, private businesses should be allowed to discriminate; businesses that are related to government or funded by the public should not be allowed to discriminate for obvious reasons (they are not privately owned, and they are funded by all tax payers). But businesses that expect to receive government funding of any kind can be required to NOT discriminate. This would discourage discrimination, but still allow for it. CapitalismCapitalism discourages discrimination. The philosopher Voltaire once quipped, "Go into the London Stock Exchange. . . and you will see representatives of all nations gathered there for the service of mankind. There the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Christian deal with each other as if they were of the same religion, and give the name of infidel only to those who go bankrupt" [4]. He was describing how people preferred maximizing profits over petty intolerance. Furthermore, petty intolerance hurts the businessman. "In his book The Economics of Discrimination, Becker pointed out that free markets make discriminators pay for discriminating because they give up opportunities to work with productive people. That doesn’t mean, he noted, that people in a free market will never discriminate; the most extreme racists and bigots will often be willing to pay the price for discriminating. But pay they will" [5]. ConclusionEmployees and consumers are all free to discriminate against businesses for any reason they wish; thus employers should have the same freedom. People do not have an inherent right to the labor and service of other people. Some individuals have legitimate reasons for discriminating. Protecting our civil liberties matters, and many of them are directly correlated with our right (and in some cases our responsibility) to decide whom we trade with. Clearly the public and USFG do not have a problem discriminating in business; consider the trade restrictions (including tariffs) we impose on goods, services and countries we don't like. Since discrimination inhibits profits, capitalism discourages discrimination and promotes finding the common ground. It should be reserved as a legally permissible option though, even if it can cause harm. Society and even the government can take measures to discourage discrimination while still allowing for it to exist legally, much like we discourage but defend things like unprotected sex, flag burning or hate speech. Thank you. [1] Economist Steven Landsburg on page 42 in his book "Fair Play" [2] "Facial Discrimination: Extending Handicap Law to Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Physical Appearance," Harvard Law Review 100(8), pp. 2035–2052. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] https://fee.org...

creation of stocks should be banned 1the whole reason we have laws and regulations in a society is to prevent "the few" from harming the rest. also, even if everyone involved in stocks was responsible and honest (HAHA!), stocks would still pose a major threat to our economy. in fact, i think it is inevitable that it will cause major harm to our economy sooner or later. our economy is delicate enough, without letting an unstable gambling institution have so much influence over the well being of everyone.2they can invest their money in other ways. better ways, actually.3 -banning the creation of stocks wouldnt take away stocks people already have, or prevent them from trading old stocks (there are 8,696 of them). and like i said, they can invest their money elsewhere. -plenty of people lose tons of money in the stock market. and any stock trade will end up with someone getting the better end of the deal.-as for people who make a living off of stocks, so what? banning smoking would put people out of work. i say good riddance! if they are forced to get a real job, maybe they can actually contribute to society, rather than just their own pockets, at the expense of others.-if you were really concerned about unemployment and the stability of our economy, then you should be against stocks, because they are unstable. it's better for a few people involved in gambling to find new work, than for our whole country to go into another great depression.4that's just another way that the rich have rigged the system so that they get richer, while the little guys and small businesses need to swim upstream. if you ban stocks, the worst that happens is that small business growth makes up for the growth of big corporations, which would really be better for everyone anyway.

Yes because it would allow natural selection to proceed If people cannot understand basic information about the risks of a particular activity then they will suffer the consequences and hopefully nature will select them out of the population before they can breed. If someone decides to smoke, drink (the major killers and the major expense for the taxpayer BTW) or take any drug then they should be allowed to do so. There is plenty of information out there to allow people to make an informed choice. If they harm themselves or others as a result of their decision then they should be denied free healthcare and made to compensate financially and criminally any individual they harm as a result of their informed decision. People who are incapable of understanding this most basic of information are a drain on humanity and should not be allowed to propagate their DNA. Research has shown that they are more likely to wear white trainers and have a satellite dish. This way, in a few hundred years or so, hardworking taxpayers will be relieved of the burden of illicit drug use as well as seeing their welfare bill plummet. The only losers with be Reebok and Sky

Abolishing anti-Bribary laws allows criminals to escape accountability In the real world, unlike Prop’s case, there will always be corruption. But following the proposition, we will only rely on the corporations’ good will, plus we won’t be able to act significantly against corruption. Without corporate law, we can only sue individuals for criminal acts, but the nature of corporations might make this impossible. Corporations are multinational entities, spread through different cities and states, with byzantine structure that could confuse any investigation - who has acted on any action, and by who’s authority. By acting through a number of internal & external middlemen[[http://tinyurl.com/3lqvnkn]] the corporation can hide its trail. Only by treating the corporation as an independent legal entity can we connect the dots and get the ability to sue for the crime. The more actors cooperate in a bribe, the harder it is to prove that anyone of them has breached every clause of the law in the needed way to show a criminal offence. The moment that several branches of a corporation commit a crime as a whole, but each branch only commits a part of the crime, then we cannot find individual culpability, while the complete entity is still responsible for a crime. More than that, the ability of the state to act against offenders abroad is very limited, while corporate law allows it to hurt the corporation where it’s vulnerable - its bottom line. This allows the state not to punish the low-level employees pushed to crime (as demonstrated in our corporate culture point), which doesn’t significantly harm the corporation, and so doesn’t deter future crimes. Instead, corporate law, which puts fines or even forbids a guilty corporation from trading in a country is exactly the type of needed deterrent - In order to prevent & punish corporate malfeasance, we need to view the corporation as whole both for the purpose of criminal investigation, and punishment.

Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed >Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. Aren't financial statements generated by the bank? I am all for making sure that banking standards are a strict as possible. >I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. My point wasn't that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. My point was that most companies don't fail from corporate malfeasance, period. >You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. My "blanket assertion" was with regard to isolated corporate failures like Enron's, not nationwide economic recessions. Hopefully, your last rebuttal will address the former kind of failure rather than the latter. >SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. Why should they be protected by the government? Why can't they just hire their own auditors? Why shouldn't they be forced to do so? If they can't afford it, they obviously shouldn't be running a corporation. >When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. Again, we're talking about isolated corporate failures here. When A business fails, its assets are bought out by other companies and put back to work. >Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. Your model of the investor/executive relationship presupposes that investors will have very little to do with how the business will be set up and run. If the investors were more involved in the process of creating Enron, I doubt that the byzantine accounting practices that made the debacle possible would have been put in place. I have no trouble with economically forcing investors to work on their investments. >SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. The "notion" of getting ripped off is not nearly as important a reality as the fact that the group of people getting ripped off is very select. >A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. And the ones with the most power should be peopled with those the shareholders can trust. If they can't screen their most important employees with the kind of competence necessary to prevent fraud, they shouldn't be investing in a company. >Businesses cannot put people behind bars. They can make sure that some people never work again. They can blacklist people and shut them out of the workforce. They can actually do a lot of things if they can be bothered to. >Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. This is where we just have to agree to disagree. I make a very clear distinction between "private property" and "personal property", you do not. The difference between the two is almost a matter of taste, and so can't be debate very clearly.

Anti- Bribery Legislation Prevents Anti-Competitive Practice We all believe that today’s businesses have the right to compete in a free market and that market factors should determine the most competitive enterprise. Bribery in the marketplace undermines these basic principles and endangers both developed and developing economies. Developed Economies: Often, emergent businesses compete for government tenders, or to obtain contracts in local bids. However, their competition and investment is rendered completely ineffectual, by large corporations greasing the palms of local authorities to ensure their corporation secures the contract. In addition to the obvious moral implications of this anti-competitive behaviour, there are practical implications. If established corporations can easily pay these large bribes, small start-up companies will be disincentivized from taking part in competition. Those who are not initially deterred will be quickly removed from the race, unable to compete with the large bribes offered. The tangible result of this detrimental practice is to create and sustain monopolies, which in turn impacts negatively on the economy at large and on the individual consumer. Developing Economies: A UN report on the effects of anti-competitive business cultures on developing countries and their development prospects discusses how eradicating anti-competitive practices like bribery “can directly and/or indirectly contribute to wealth maintenance and creation, which is key to poverty alleviation.” [[http://is.gd/T8bBBc]] Clearly, we do not want a scenario in which wealthy western corporations can profit from business in the developing world simply because they can afford to bribe officials into ignoring worthy local competitors. If corporate anti-bribery legislation were to be abolished, we lose its highly deterrent effect, and we also lose the ability to prosecute these unfair practices which perpetuate business monopolies at best, and cycles of poverty at worst.

File-sharing Should Be Allowed As soon as something is released into the public realm, it is, by definition, shared. Once someone ...

File-sharing Should Be Allowed It is not possible to regulate the distribution of copyrighted works. The internet is developing so...

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

not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers

Companies and governments should be allowed to collect private data without permission or a warrant. Yes, it can be allowed for it is abide conscience if you are really pure and no criminal cases in your past life or not even a single worry, will be okay to someone to get their private date without permission. That's why some cases are delayed because of the insufficient time and increasing volume of the needs of warrants before acting upon it.If a suspected person is wholesome and clean to its crime so he/she will have no argues about the information of that.

creation of stocks should be banned 3000 character limit. 1 - Rampant stock speculation was just one of many factors that lead to the Great depression... In fact almost two years passed between the stock market crash and widespread bank failures, which is really where the Great Depression began to ravage everything.... Stocks and investing in them can be done in a safe manner, and just because they can be abused by a few people it doesnt mean it should necessarily be banned. 2 - On the other hand, investing in stocks is often a tactic that is used by middle class Americans to prepare for retirement by growing their money over time, and has been successful for millions of people millions of times. 3 - On a more minor note, banning the creation of stocks and the stock market would immediately put thousands and thousands of stock brokers, price estimators, etc. out of work and force people who were in retirement because of successful stock investments to go back into the workforce. This would cause an utterly massive rise in unemployment, and this would lead to a domino effect of other economic woes that could put us in an economic recession far worse then any stock market crash ever could. 4 - Initial Public Offerings (IPO's, which is the technical term for creating a stock) is one of the fastest ways a company can acquire a large amount of money to expand itself by having investors pour money into them. The amount of money a company can make by going public often exceeds how much it normally could get out of a bank loan (banks not exactly the safest entities either). As the money initially borrowed is paid back with interest, this helps the average investor grow richer while the company is now in much better shape then it was when it went public in the first place. Stocks literally allow everyone to win, even if its not initially. Ill end here for now, 4 is good enough

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

The salable and conferrable nature of intellectual property allows for the efficient and just distribution of ideas It is no more just that an individual's family benefit from a monopoly over an idea, than the individual who created it. There remains no inherent right to an idea. As for the sale of patents and licenses, firms will waste precious resources in fighting amongst each other for monopoly control over intellectual property, and will even buy the rights to products with no intention of using them, planning simply to prevent any competitors from doing so. The most efficient system is to have ideas be public and accessible and usable by everyone. When they are, more innovation will occur. improve this

Prisoners should be allowed to publish full details of their crimes. YOU FORFEITED YOUR OWN ROUND AND SAID NO FORFEITS!!!!!!!! Many prisoners should be able to publish full detail of their crime because there are accounts that do not have accurate information. Also, these people could stand up for their freedom in court if their full detail does indeed match the information on the crime earlier from the police and surveillance cameras, along with witnesses. This could help the innocent get out of prison when they are not guilty and feel that their punishment was not right. This could also help others who may be wanting to warn others about how the police are using their technology and how being in the court is. How you may feel in the court, how you can get out of the court if you are innocent, and other things like that may help people who are being accused of crimes but are innocent. Again, this could help people who are innocent, but were actually accused of their crime to get OUT of their crime.

Monopolies should be illegal Reason 1: Monopolies do not benefit the consumer.If a company has a monopoly on a product, there is a pretty good chance that it is going to charge customers through the nose for it. The company, after all, has complete assurance that nobody can offer the product at a lower price, and people must either pay their fees, or not get the product. The company may be able to make the process of production more efficient and cheaper, but it is unlikely the company will be altruistic enough to pass those savings onto consumers unless it has an ulterior motive. All in all, the consumer does not benefit from a monopoly.Reason 2: Monopolies do not benefit workers.If a company obtains a monopoly, the jobs once held by its competitors vaporize. In a bad economy, it would not be a wise choice for the government to allow jobs to be lost in this fashion.Reason 3: Monopolies allow the separation of the classes. Some of the wealthiest people of all time were men that held monopolies (Rockefeller, Carnegie, and now Slim). These men controlled and control the flow of such great wealth that other people suffered. Monopolies would further aggravate this problem.Conclusion: Monopolies do not benefit consumers, workers, or anyone in the middle and lower class. Monopolies should hence be unlawful and prohibited in all civilized countries.

creation of stocks should be banned 1) Stability of the Stock Market"our economy is delicate enough, without letting an unstable gambling institution have so much influence over the well being of everyone."Unstable is just your opinion though. The way the economy works is through a boom and a bust cycle, and banning new stocks from being formed isnt going to change that for the better. 2) Road to wealth for the middle class"they can invest their money in other ways. better ways, actually."Thats just your own unsubstantiated opinion again, and people dont have to live by how you would manage your finances either just because you think its the safest way. People should be able to do whatever they want with their money if they think it keeps it secure and safe, and for millions of people, a valid option is the stock market and investing in growing businesses. Stock markets also are a great option for people who want to grow their savings quickly, which is something you cant do just by shoving it all into a bank or under a mattress. Stocks is a great way for people form the middle or lower class to protect their savings or grow them depending on which one you prefer, and not many other options exist that are as easily available to the middle class either. 3) Banning the creation of new stocksWhere else can people invest their money and get a massive turnout in a short time like you potentially can on the stock market? Just because people can invest it somewhere else doesnt mean they should be forced to by taking away arguably their best option..."so what? banning smoking would put people out of work. i say good riddance! if they are forced to get a real job"Ok now youre just being stupid.... You are arguing that banning new stocks would be for the best, yet if thousands of people lose their jobs, then suddenly its ok just because you dont like people in that profession?" it's better for a few people involved in gambling to find new work, than for our whole country to go into another great depression."The stock market crash of 1929 didnt even cause the Great Depression, the Great depression was caused by a host of factors that didnt kick in until years after the stock market crashed, most predominantly the numerous bank failures that crashed everyone's credit. 4) Way for new small companies to grow fast" if you ban stocks, the worst that happens is that small business growth makes up for the growth of big corporations"Thats the exact OPPOSITE of what would happen. If you ban the creation of stocks then new small businesses lose a huge means for expanding and becoming more profitable which would then allow existing big companies to maintain their power. Pro's arguments for banning new stocks are based entirely on his warped and ill-informed view of how the stock market actually works and who all benefits from it. The Middle Class and small businesses benefit from the stock market the most, which is why we shouldnt ban the creation of new stocks

That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers I shall now offer my rebuttal point by point according to the points given by my opponent. The link between past crime and potential future crime and unemployment1. There is a link between crime and unemployment when, for example, a certain ethnic minority has an enormous unemployment rate so they commit crime to survive. Ex-criminals are not ethnic minorities. They are not discriminated. They will have job opporunities, no one denies that, and I do not oppose the idea of them being hired. The only thing I propose is that employers have insight into their record to be able to take all precautions and pass correct when reviewing applications.2. My opponent seems to have misunderstood my round 2 rebuttal, since he asks why am I supportive of ex-criminals getting a job. I must point out I never opposed them getting a job. I never even said they are always dangerous. The point I tried to prove is that the employer's opinion matters most when hiring and that he should be able to give his opinion according to all the available information when hiring. I never said I support companies not caring abou the record. Whether or not a company/employer chooses to hire an ex-criminal is their decision. What we must ensure is that the decision is made upon all the available information.3. My opponent speaks of discrmination and a certain stigma, but he hasn't explained how exactly that is discrimination. Ex-criminals are simply judged by relevant information during the process of getting a job (for example, time served in jail can leave "marks" on peple, and the employer must be able to know that the applicant served time in jail so he can determine whether or not those marks can have an effect on the applicant should he be employed), just as they are judged by their education, past experience etc. There is a difference between being judged by past actions, or being judged because you were born with another skin color. I do not support stigmatization of ex-criminals. My point is only that due care should be taken while reintegrating them into society.4. Past criminal actions do not affect employment skills per se, but they may affect performance in a certain branch more than in another branch; not because of the skills required, but because of the environment etc. We are talking about certain consequences of past actions that could have an effect on ex-criminals, and that is why employers hld have insight into crimina lrecords. The comparison to a CV was made to prove how judging on relevant information is important, while I've already addressed the problem of poverty and crime.5. People are capable of reform, but we can't just take that possibility for granted. Precautions must always be taken, because one single case is enough to endager many lives.6. No one disputes the need for security measures, regardless of whether one employs ex-cons or not. It is the responsibility of every employer to devise and apply security measures for all possible situations; which involves ex-cons as well. Once again, that is a legitimate reason to allow employers insight into criminal records. Perhaps a bad employer would feel complacent, but then again, such an employer would apply no security measures whatsoever. Do employers have a right to protect themselves at society's cost?1. I have already addressed that problem in the first part of my rebuttal. Ex-felons will not get universally rejected just because someone looked into their criminal record. That insight simply allows potential employers to be 100% sure of their decision, and even help ex-felons with reintegration should they be employed.2. The link between high crime rates and the African-Amerin population is a complicated one, but once again, there is a difference between discrimination and judging on relevant information. This debate is about a simple insight into criminal records, not about discrimionation of ethnic minorities.3. My opponent bases his rebuttal on the simple insinuation that employers are careless and won't even look through the full story even if it is given to them. Such employers do not last long and they are not relevant. A good employer will look into the record just as he looks into any other information and think well before deciding. It is in his interest that the company prospers; he does not just sit there, make decisions from the top of his head and collect money. Furthermore, employers also have advisors to help make a decision.4. For the upteenth time, discrimination based on ethnicity, religion and gender is irrelevant to this debate. We are not talking about discrimination here. As for moving on ex-cons, I have already addressed that probm in previous points. Furthermore, I agree that employers must help with reintegration. Do you not agree they would better help an ex-con if they knew what he went through and gave guidance? Many employers would be willing to do that, and since they have a responsibility towards every single employee, they must have information about every single employee. If they do, only then they can help. Finally, I do not see an advantage in not hiring ex-cons, especially when work force is very much appreciated.5. Judges have no connection to future employment. They do not know whether the ex-con will seek employment after jail, or where he will seek it. Such assumptions are too far-fetched and one cannot make decisions based on predictions. An employer, aware of the current situation, is much better suited to making a decision. The problem of rash decisions has already been addressed. On poverty and recidivism1. This has been adressed multiple times during my round 3 rebuttal.2. All true. But unfair employers are unfair towards everyone. Not just ex-felons. Why they are unfair is irrelevant, the point is that when an employer is unfair, he is generally unfair. Thus, this bears no direct connection to the problem.3. The list offered was a list of the most prominent employers. Not of all the employers. I apologise if I had not made that clear enough. The problem of stigmatization has already, I repeat, been addressed during this rebuttal.4. Yes. It can. There is just one little problem: we are not talking about ethnic minorities.5. We are not talking about ethnic minorities and racism. We are talking about ex-cons, and ex-cons in general. Each application should be treated individually. No one is going to say: "Oh look, he's black. He must be a criminal. Let's not hire him. " And whoever does say that would have said it regardless of a criminal record. As for my opponent's conclusion:Of course I do not support decisions based on sexuality, religion etc. , because that information is irrelevant. Criminal records are relevant, as I have already stated. Recidivism isn't only about employment. I have proven during this debate, especially in this rebuttal, that insight into criminal records won't negatively affect recidivism, and that is what my task was to prove in this rebuttal, among others. My task isn't to offer a full solution to recidivism. In conclusion, throughout this rebuttal I have refuted my opponent's arguments and strenghtened my own, while my opponent has, up to now, based his argumentation on insinuations about how employers will be careless and on discrimination of ethnic minorities, which does not have anything to do with this debate at all. I have proved why employers should have insight into criminal records and I have shown how that may even help with reintegratin ex-felons. All this shows why we must allow employers insight into criminal records.

Anti-bribery laws are consistent with Government mandate and responsibility Today as things stand if someone commits a crime they go to jail. If a corporation commits a violation of corporate law it is fined, sanctioned, etc. Prop tried to advocate that with Anti-Bribery laws, in the case of corporations, they should be an exception to the general rule. To begin with, this is a problem because both sides agree that bribery is still considered a very bad thing. So Prop’s only real major claim left is their logic that corps can police themselves better than the Government can. This has a few underlying premises: 1. Corps have the best interest of the general public, or at least on the same level of a government judicial body – otherwise, if they will err to the side of their own interest, they are not the best to arbitrate. 2. That in practicality this would catch more corruption and have a better practical outcome. Governments were created to take care of people, protect their interest and arbitrate when needed. As evident from the above, corporations and their employees are not the right body to fight bribery. We need to give authority and power to protect the population’s interest, to those who are more likely to have these interests at the top of their priorities. Those that who are less likely to err in favor of themselves when they can, instead of erring on the side of public interest. The financial crisis of late 2000s is a vivid example of the risks in not doing so.[[http://is.gd/XILPwQ]] We’ve also shown in our points how the government is the most effective in fighting bribery. But most importantly: Even If corps would be as impartial as the government and Even If they could be more efficient - current anti bribery laws do some good and are still a deterrent, as we proved. So, while we agree that reforms could be instated and the system isn't perfect, at best this new system of checks and balances -can work alongside- the existing one, and doesn’t call for abolishing the law as the only possible solution.

Traveling should be aloud in basketball Seeing that my opponent has forfeited the round, I don't see how you could vote against me. Since I don't have to rebute anything, I'll use this time to reiterate my earlier points. If basketball allows traveling, it will be more enjoyable to the fans and players due to the faster paced game (See above rebuttal for reasoning). This means more sales for NBA teams and increased participation at all levels. More people will be ABLE to play if traveling is allowed (Again, see above rebuttal for reasoning). People with disorders that limited their movement/physical abilities will be able to compete at a higher level than they would if traveling were penalized. Thank you for your time and please remember to vote PRO!!!

Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital. Thank you Con for your swift response. However, I feel there must have been a mix up in communication; the full resolution, as stated in PR1, was as follows; "The United States should allow imports of goods and capital from any society outside of the United States allowing that the domestic laws of the U.S. (such as regulations, finance laws etc.) are followed. Essentially, anyone may sell goods to the U.S. and invest in firms, land, capital goods so long as they abide by the laws that all U.S. investors and U.S. firms have to abide by with goods sold in the U.S. and investments in U.S. firms, land, and capital goods." This was done because the length of the full resolution would not have fit nicely. Now, much of what Con describes would be illegal if done by a citizen within the United States. Human Trafficking: Illegal in the U.S. across all 50 states of the union per the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. Hence, it would be illegal for a U.S. citizen to import these "goods" (slaves forced to provide a service against their will would be a more accurate definition). Drugs: Personal stance aside, many drugs are illegal in the U.S and around most of the world. Prescriptions, under U.S. law, would still need FDA approval. Child Pornography: Again, illegal for U.S. citizens to purchase it, still illegal. Nuclear Weapons: Argument extended. Restricted Weapons: Argument extended. Invasive Species (as defined by law in respective state and federal law): Argument extended. Now, on to the case of counterfeit bills and military blueprints, defense plans etc, as well as the poison example. In the case of counterfeit currency, that is a case of fraud (as the person who traded for currency most likely wanted the "legitimate" currency). Otherwise, it is willfully participating in counterfeiting money, a crime in the U.S. In the case of blue-prints, there is a reasonable dichotomy that can be set; it is U.S. plans, or it is not. If it is U.S. plans, then why should they not be imported back into the territory of the State they were stolen from? Also, would fall under the laws of disclosing "top-secret" information. If not U.S. files, then why complain about a free-er market working to do the spy"s job at a cheaper expense? In the case of potentially poisonous foodstuff; who knowingly buys tainted food? You mention a case that the FDA may certainly be less efficient at (part of the problems of being part of a territorial monopoly), but it is still illegal to sell tainted food, with or without knowledge. So, the same argument is extended. However, I would like to use my last round of positive arguments to address something that should come up; how does one prosecute a criminal outside U.S. borders? How does one safely sue for damages? It would work in terms of shifting responsibility until the original criminal pays restitution. Consider the case of poisoned food. Most likely, a grocery chain bought the tainted food. That food was likely bought from a food packager, who bought stock from different sellers. As each group along the line gets sued (the grocer, then the packager, then the food seller), restitution is achieved. However, a foreigner may claim immunity from such practices, and their home courts for whatever reason agree; what then? Well, the solution on the international scene now for disputes is settled by private arbiters. [1] The reasons for going along with this as a business owner is simple; agreeing to go to one of these private courts is the price of entry, and disagreeing results in blacklisting. The incentives are heavily inclined, then, to make quality important in trade. So, most of Con"s concerns stem from a misreading of the full resolution explained in Pro Round 1, and where a legitimate concern does exist private companies have set up to keep businesses honest with each other across borders and to satisfy consumer demands. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Companies have the interest of controling internal corruption themselves. Legislating laws is critical to our society not just due to the effectiveness of laws in deterring corporations from corrupt acts. Laws are also important as a cursor and statement of what our society views as valid and moral conduct, and what we denounce as corrupt and undesirable. Therefore, Prop’s claim that bribery laws are not needed is missing the basic point of what laws are for. And practically, abolishing anti-bribery laws sends corporations the clear message of bribery no longer being denounced morally. Abolishing anti-bribery laws has nothing to do with motivating corporations to more social responsibility. Laws for protecting society, and social responsibility, are not mutually exclusive but actually co-exist: companies can report irregularities or display social responsibility, in an environment where there are also specific laws. We've also shown this in our previous refutation regarding environmental and social issues. Therefore, by keeping the anti bribery law, we as a society enjoy both the moral and deterrence benefits of the law, as well as the continued social responsibility of corporations, which is also fuelled by being fully aware and constantly reassured of society’s harsh view on bribery.

Drugs should be allowed in the United States If you do illegal drugs, it is all on you and no one else. This is because you have your own brain and should know better than to do drugs if you do know the risks of it you know if can land you in jail and/or kill you. The United States should allow them because you (by you I mean everyone in the world) have a brain you can use it. If you could go to jail for it and or die from it, it should be your choice to do it or not.

The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done The argument leads to a slippery slope. It is one thing to regulate speech on matters that are objectively verifiable, quite another to restrict the permissible scope of opinion and expression.  Even then, the state should be extremely cautious about declaring a state of objective fact.  People taking advice on matters such as tax always take the risk that that advice may turn out to be bad, the amount of risk a person is willing to take is entirely a matter of personal responsibility and not a matter that the government should intervene in.

allow the production of generic drugs The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it

Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected. The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive[1]. Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves[2]. Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public[3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations. In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned[4], all of these organisations are “corporate”. The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.”[5] The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy. Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article[6], the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights. [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10128233 [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003. http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/157829.shtml [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18437755 [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

creation of stocks should be banned "Unstable is just your opinion though."it's a gambling institution and it already crashed before. that is not just my opinion"People should be able to do whatever they want with their money if they think it keeps it secure and safe."but it poses a threat to everyone"Where else can people invest their money and get a massive turnout in a short time like you potentially can on the stock market? Just because people can invest it somewhere else doesnt mean they should be forced to by taking away arguably their best option..."the stock market in particular is unpredictable. and even if it was the best option, that doesnt give them the right to jeopardize the well being of the whole country. and a depression would affect everyone, even stock traders. a ban is for their own good, and ours."if thousands of people lose their jobs, then suddenly its ok just because you dont like people in that profession?"it's better for 1000 people to lose their jobs for a couple months, than for 1,000,000 to lose their jobs for a decade."The stock market crash of 1929 didnt even cause the Great Depression"that is false. the crash was in late 1929, and according to encyclopedia Britannica, history.com, and Wikipedia, the Great Depression started around 1929/1930 and ended around 10 years later, so the crash did almost immediately result in the great depression. there are other factors that made things worse later on, but the stock market crash was the trigger that led to things like a banking crisis.http://www.britannica.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.history.com..."If you ban the creation of stocks then new small businesses lose a huge means for expanding and becoming more profitable which would then allow existing big companies to maintain their power."if it was that easy, most small businesses would be big corporations by now."The Middle Class and small businesses benefit from the stock market the most, which is why we shouldnt ban the creation of new stocks"no, those involved most directly in the stock market have the most to gain by the stock market. and again, a depression is not an ideal scenario for the little guy.you seem to not even care about the threat of a great depression. you are acting as though the stock market crash didn't even contribute to the great depression.

Corporate anti-bribery laws protect public health and safety Proposition will doubtless agree today's corporations have tremendous influence on public health and safety, both in the developing and in the developed worlds. It follows, therefore, that corporations bribing officials to circumvent safety or health regulations represent a substantial danger to society, bigger than any risk that might be posed by an individual. Indeed, it is imperative that we pay particular legislative attention to corporate corruption, in order protect the public from the enormous harm that could result from even one corporation engaging in this practice. Public health: Approving pharmaceuticals is an arduous procedure which can take many years. Conversely, one year of drug sales and first mover advantage can bring a company billions. Therefore, corporations have enormous temptation to bribe officials to bypass these essential procedures, resulting in approval of medications whose safety has not been adequately determined. Unfortunately, this is not just a theoretical argument. Last year, 6 big Pharmas were investigated for violations of the FCPA, the US anti-bribery legislation.[[http://is.gd/1818f1]] It is -these- laws that allowed the US government to subpoena and investigate the local and international practices of these companies, and thus to protect the public from the long-term and drastic harms of unsafe drugs going to market. Public Safety: If corporations aren’t subject to rigorous anti-bribery investigation, they pay off officials to obtain higher pollution quotas, to secure licences for buildings not compliant with safety standards, or to develop in unsafe areas. Again, this is not theoretical: Bribes are the cause of water pollution in India[[http://is.gd/WlTXT8]]; G.E. has been accused of bribing the Puerto Rico Water Authority.[[http://is.gd/ocyIw7]] Because corporations can pollute incomparably more than any other pollution source, we must legislate to ensure corporations can’t bribe their way around the law.

Privacy I believe that the government should be allowed access to our online information. The reason as to why is because they are just doing their job and trying to protect the nation as a whole. If they believe that there is suspicious activity going on then they should have the right to view it. No one should be worried about privacy on the Internet because they are the ones putting out all their information. If you are truly worried about someone seeing anything about your private life then don't put it on the Internet for everyone to see. Information that an individual would like to keep private should not be on the Internet in the first place.

creation of stocks should be banned "it's a gambling institution and it already crashed before. that is not just my opinion"It is much safer then it was back in 1929 when it first crashed, and after every recession we learn a little bit more about how we can take care of the stock market so that it is as safe and profitable as it can be. Its not something that cannot be controlled no matter how hard people try, the stock market can be made safe, has been made safe, and compared to what it used to be is much safer then it has ever been before. "but it poses a threat to everyone"So do banks but we shouldnt ban the creation of new banks just because banks can pose a threat..."the stock market in particular is unpredictable. and even if it was the best option, that doesnt give them the right to jeopardize the well being of the whole country. and a depression would affect everyone, even stock traders. a ban is for their own good, and ours."You cant justify banning something just because its for everyones own good... Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the world, but we shouldnt ban cars for 'the greater good', thats just stupid..."it's better for 1000 people to lose their jobs for a couple months, than for 1,000,000 to lose their jobs for a decade."The stock market though does a whole lot more then just create jobs, its a path to success for middle class Amerixans and small businesses who otherwise would have far elss options and chances of making it big. ". the crash was in late 1929, and according to encyclopedia Britannica, history.com, and Wikipedia, the Great Depression started around 1929/1930 and ended around 10 years later, so the crash did almost immediately result in the great depression."If you read your own sources you also would have noticed that the Great Depression was also caused by1) A massive breakdown in overseas trade2) Banks giving out high risk loans and investments left and right3) Overproduction of goods combined with low wages eventually causing industries to crash4) Poor decision making by the FEDAnd other things as well. The Stock Market was just one of many, many different things that led to the Great Depression, it most certainly was not the smokign gun that caused the Great Depression to break out..."if it was that easy, most small businesses would be big corporations by now."The reason Apple is as big as it is now is because people had the chance to invest in it and give it some needed early capital to do business. Apple started in someones garage and if people didnt have a chance to invest in it and allow the company to grow, it could have easily died within that Garage too. The Stock market serves a valuable purpose to average Americans, businesses big or small, and over time has only grown safer and safer. New stocks shouldnt be banned for the sake of 'the greater good' just because it carries some risk to it. All great things carry risk to them, that doesnt mean they should be banned.

gun control/ assault weapons ban No. To allow guns allows geniuses and pornstars to be killed :(Both are too precious to lose for humanity.

creation of stocks should be banned the existence of stocks and stock trading jeapordizes our economy, and does not make up for it. it triggered the great depression and may trigger another one, so it should be phased out by banning the creation of new stocksstart your rebuttals in 1st round

This house believes that profiting from the prison system should be a crime. To restate my point and add new points. 1) the government need the money, with out that money, we can't have anymore prisons. with out those prison, said, criminals will be out and free because there will not be enough jails. we have to pay for, worker, food, electricity, everything. 2)the criminals are in jail meaning they can't get a normal job like regular people. This way, they also contribute to the country. 3) the criminal system can help rehabilitate and get money at the same time.

Large companies should be allowed to hire prisoners for labor work. I will first proceed to rebut against my opponent's wise arguments before stating my final words. "My opponent, to be kind, is over-exaggerating the extent of private, industrial employment within the prison system. According to available sources, such employment accounts for approximately 6,000 prisoners nationwide, representing less than 1% of the total prison population (https://econ.duke.edu......). The overwhelming portion of the "Prison Industrial Complex" belongs to large corporations and government agencies that build, supply, feed, or house the nation's 2.3 million prison population. Going after a minuscule portion of that market seems to be, in my opinion, small potatoes." I do not appreciate when people talk about minorities as if they are unimportant. Every life on this planet (no matter how criminal the life may be) deserves humane working conditions. Six-thousand people is six-thousand too many working in these unsanitary conditions. Cases have been shown where chemicals such as arson, mercury, and lead intoxicated the air of the workplaces, and the prisoners had no gear to protect themselves (http://www.globalresearch.ca...). I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want anyone in those places without protection. "The vast majority of prisoners are required to work for little or no pay within their prison-- laundry, cooks, maintenance, etc. State run prisons make use of prison labor to recoup the cost of incarceration, to pay retribution to the victims of the prisoner, or to pay child support for the prisoner's children." Does it not bug you that there are homeless people out on the streets that have no job and can't support their children? I fully respect the fact that we need to take care of our prisoners, but if we plan to pay them for needs such as child support, we need to first take priority in taking care of our innocent citizens. ""UNICOR, " also known as Federal Prison Industries, is an organization that runs prison work programs for the Federal Prison System and is often cited by prisoner-rights advocates as a major violator of prisoners rights, as it also pays below minimum wage. But it too is a GOVERNMENT entity--- not the private corporation to which Debatergorl holds angst." While UNICOR is the main culprit of these poor working conditions, there are other private corporations that do make use of prison labor with poor conditions (such as Walmart, BP, Macy's, etc). In the case of the BP oil spill, prison labor was used (exposing these prisoners to toxic conditions with little pay) until nearby residents complained of the unfair treatment. (http://www.thenation.com...#) In any case, when I stated "large companies" in the prompt, that meant all companies (including those that are government run, such as UNICOR). As you stated, their treatment is illegal, but we as a nation are not stopping them. Part of the reason we are "allowing these actions" is because we are doing nothing to tighten our grip on these corporations. "The large private companies that have recently made use of prison labor do so under the heavy regulation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, an office of the US Dept. of Justice. Under the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program, private corporations may use prison labor but must pay "prevailing wages" or the Federal Minimum Wage, which ever is higher, to their prison employees." These regulations were implemented in 2001, yet all of my previous sources have been filed from 2011-2013. We are apparently not tightening the grip enough. "Given these facts, I would argue that it improves the economy by helping otherwise unemployed convicts find jobs, while reducing the overall tax burden for incarceration." But who is it helping? The companies. The companies are only getting richer and richer by paying these prisoners next to nothing when they could be providing jobs like these (with a higher pay) to people in need of them. "Also known as "PIE," the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program was developed in 1979 as a means to give prisoners marketable skills that will help them find employment after their incarceration." "They need skills that will enable them to find gainful employment and to break the cycle of criminal activity." I think it is good that they are helping prepare these people to go back to normal lives with normal jobs, but again- we are not helping the innocent civilians under the poverty line prepare for finding jobs because they cannot afford college education. We need to set priorities. If we are going to help the prisoners, we must first help the innocent people. Remember, we want our country to be known for greatness, and not for putting people inhumane conditions or setting the priority of prisoners over our innocent citizens. By tightening the grip, we only earn the wrong image. Thank you.

2. The mixture between “dirty” & corrupt governments and “clean” & ethical corporations is simply impossible. Just because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish “dirty” & “clean” or right from wrong, doesn’t mean our laws shouldn’t try to do so. FIRSTLY: The fact that some governments are corrupt doesn’t mean that this type of law should be abolished. Bottom line of Prop’s argument is that in corrupt countries there shouldn’t be any law at all, because we don’t trust them to enforce it! Team Israel sees no reason to bow before corruption and ease it, just because it exists. When a crime is committed repeatedly, it’s a reason to increase oversight, not to legalize it. SECONDLY: We don’t agree with Prop’s notion that the problem here is “demand” alone. Just like every criminal market, we find both the the supplier and the client to be guilty. Consider, for example the case with human trafficking, with drugs, or with child pornography. Both supply and demand exist in all these markets, all are illegal. We legislate in an effort to curb the entire market because we believe these practices are wrong and harmful - we don’t simply focus the “demand” and lift all prohibitions from the suppliers! THIRDLY: We don’t agree that there is over-regulation of any kind. Rather the opposite, as long as there’s corruption, the efforts aren’t sufficient. FINALLY: Prop’s logic is problematic when discussing the subject of settlement. We should remember that settlement can only occur after the state starts a judicial procedure against a corporation, which can only happen when there’s law. Without laws, states don’t have any option to act against corporations, and the corps don’t have any reason to settle. We should remember that settlement isn’t cooperation - it only comes after one side has decided to break the law unilaterally, and the other to uphold it. We see no reason whatsoever to cease fighting something that Prop agrees is harmful. As long as we’re weeding out the wrongs in our society there's no reason to give up.

SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS "If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question." THIS MATTERS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INVEST AS YOU CHOOSE AND NOT BE TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS A SAFE OPTION, THIS IS CALLED LIBERITY. There is no reason to shut down the stock market, listed above is my opponents best argument against the stock market and as you can see it is an argument against personal liberty.

Guns should be allowed In the 2nd amendment says "right to bear arms". Why would anyone take away something our founding fathers wanted?

File-sharing Should Be Allowed The argument that sales are going to drop is completely wrong and it has been used with cassette tap...

not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive

Bullying should be allowed, as it builds character. Yes bullying should be allowed.Because it is a feeling to be respected and the human brain sees that as intimidation as the only form for respect. Bullying also should be allowed because imagine if there was no bullying everything would be really calm and people would like some action. It provides a pinch of action.Not only that but it gives males a feeling of superiority and a rush of testosterone.Also it shows bravery and courage just in the wrong context. The courage, bravery, and the respect builds up a character that shows not to back down when the world puts it down

That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers My opponent opens the debate by stating that poverty and crime are problems, and they are indeed. However, I believe that is not a reason to keep criminal records secret from employers and I shall prove that. So, without further ado, I move on to analysing my opponent's case. The solution proposed by my opponent is that judges be able to issue certain measures according to one's criminal record, but not employers, because he believes giving insight into criminal records to employers is punishment towards ex-felons. There is, however, a difference between punishment and qualification. I shall offer an example. If an employer decides to reject an application because the applicant hasn't fulfilled a condition, is it punishment? No, it isn't. The employer, as a qualified person in charge of a business, company etc. , is simply saying: "No, sorry, you cannot work here, because I, as the employer, deem you unqualified. " That is perfectly normal in the modern world, and it is the same with criminal records, where the employer should be given the chance to tell someone that he hasn't fulfilled the conditions set. Then, my opponent spaks about how judges should be responsible for issuing measures because they are accountable to the state, trained professionals and know the whole story. Judges are indeed accountable to the state and that is why they have power on state level to issue punishment for criminal deeds and one cannot dispute that. On the other hand, an employer runs a business, is responsible for that business and dependable on it, and thus he has the qualifications in a certain area to reject someone because he deems the person is unfit to work in his business/company. The point is that employers are trained as well as judges. Judges are trained to issue punishment and they do so. But when the punishment is issued and executed, and the felons reintegrated into society, they can again be rejected by any employer because of their history, because the employer is trained enough in his area (or definitely more trained in a certain area than a judge) to decide whether the criminal record will affect the performance of an applicant. As for access to the whole story, it would be a better solution to give employers insight into details, because they, as people responsible for a business and a certain number workers, should definitely have insight. He also states judicial decisions will be better because judges won't have to compensate for employers' decions, but he didn't show how exactly do they compensate? Judges are there to issue punishment according to the law and they do so. A decision of a judge is based on solely on a criminal deed; a judge cannot predict what will happen to the felon in jail, let alone afer his punishment. A judge has no correlation with an employer. Whether the judge makes his decision according to the criminal deed or not is a question of the judge's skill, not the quality of the current system. My opponent then mentions anti-discrimination laws, and labels decision-making based on one's criminal record discrimination as well. Anti-discrimination laws exist to prevent discrimination because of irrelevant things - for example, one's skin color. One's skin color does not affect one's peformance, but throughout history, employers were prejudiced towards people with a different skin color, so laws were enacted to prevent that. On the other hand, one's criminal record and criminal history can indeed affect one's performance and it has been proven. Felonies are serious acts, and the employer must be allowed to pass judgement on whether or not that act performed in one's past is relevant or not, because the employer can best judge what effect will that have on his other employees, the business as a whole etc. . http://www.businessknowhow.com...As stated in the aforementioned source, 57% of human resource professionals are worried about violence in the workplace and enact more background checks. Why do they do that? Because they are trained and have a huge knowledge of the area they specialize in, as well as how certain employee histories can affect the business. Furthermore, no one disputes the importance of job interviews, but with access to criminal records, employers would be better informed. Judging by my opponent's logic, CVs are also unnecessary because they are simply records and don't show the whole story. That's right, they don't. But along with job interviews, they do - that is why we require both, and it's the same with criminal records. My opponent's second argument concerns rehabilitation. My opponent states that it is important and that society has an interest in felons commiting no more crimes. That is true, of course. He also states that there is a link between crimies and poverty, which is also true. But instead of denying important information from employers, more effort should be placed in counselling for ex-felons and in informing them of job opportunities, which are many. There are more than enough companies that employ ex-felons and one cannot claim that they are systematically denied jobs beuse of the sheer amount of opportunities. Below is a list of companies that employ ex-felons in the USA, as well as a list of possibilities, to prove my statement that possibilities are plenty. . http://www.ranker.com...http://ezinearticles.com...My opponent then speaks about opportunity (after speaking of need), to which I can but repeat the same I said in the last paragraph, for the answer is the same. As for minimal wage etc. , that depends on the fairness of a certain employer, and not the system. An unfair employer will always be unfair, despite the system. The living standard he describes is bad indeed, but that comes into play only if there are no opportunities, and it has been proven there are plenty. Finally, he spaks of discimination and underclasses. That is why the anti-discrimination laws he mentioned exist - to prevent discrimination based on irrelevant information. The poverty of underclasses is caused by the policies of a certain state etc. A state that respects its minorities does not allow that to happen, and thus underclasses are not forced to commit crimes. It has nothing to do with employers and access to records. We should indeed not discriminate based on one being a member of an underclass; a white man can be judged based on his criminal record, as well as a black man. In the end, I must state that the employer has a huge responsibility and must be able to know everything. Should that ability be taken from him, his role as employer is minimized and the hierarchy of a business is damaged. That is why we should allow employers access to criminal records. Since most of my points and argumentation have been given given during my rebuttal, I shall just shortly repeat it in one argument. Responsibility and role of the employerThe employer has a role to judge job applicants and that is why he must be allowed access to all relevant information. He has a responsibility towards his employees and his business, which is why he must account for every possibility. A judge is not directly responsible for employees and so isn't fully qualified to make a decision. He is also not as skilled in a certain area as the employer. These are but some reasons why employers should be given the chance to make the decision based on all the information. Felons have committed inappropriate acts and yes, they can be judged based on their acts. There is no discrimination in that. It is the same as any other relevant qualification. If one has failed in a task in the past, he will most likely not be given that task again. If one has failed in behaving accordingly, he can be judged, as well as punished. My rebuttal has been given, back to my opponent.

THW allow the buying and selling of human organs. Because Pro forfeited this round I have no reason to write rebuttals.

Bailouts Should be Banned Con says that I am appealing to emotion: I am not appealing to emotion but to fairness, limited government, and free market economy, all of which are imbedded in the Constitution. Obviously, if there is no demand for a product, then it is probably time for it to stop being made.

This house believes that profiting from the prison system should be a crime. The government needs the money that they get from the inmates.

Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected. The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to  articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties. However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares[1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to. The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...”[2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive. The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts[3]. Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles. An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected. Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate. [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150 [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003. http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/157829.shtml [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004

Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues. Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope.  Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature.   Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself.   And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer.   Opinion polling is not unique. And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue.  There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy.   The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing.  To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.

The mixture between “dirty” & corrupt governments and “clean” & ethical corporations is simply impossible.(reconstruction) 1. Perhaps a misunderstanding. Opposition in this debate has never advocated “adopting yet another law” or imposing "further" regulation. We’re simply talking about not abolishing laws we already have. Prop’s burden is to show that they are harmful ENOUGH as to warrant abolition. 2. We believe the most effective solution would be to tackle both supply & demand, as these are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, the entire market requires our attention, just as child pornography does. We target suppliers AND consumers of this market, because we believe it hams fundmental rights in society. We are also interested in what Prop suggests as a mechanism to lower demand for bribery, or human greed? Perhaps, until they have a great plan in mind, we can lower supply by limiting the ability of large corporations to pay bribes. 3. Prop is concerned that bribery laws unfairly impose “a preventive mechanism that the company is responsible for.” Regulation is expensive, they argue, therefore penalizes those who comply, and may find themselves “on the verge of bankruptcy.” But Props’ alternative to these laws is for companies to self-regulate & treat bribery prevention as part of their CSR missions! Surely this too requires “adequate procedures in place to prevent the offending conduct” which they find so cumbersome? It seems the proposed alternative given by our opponents- a basic tenet of their case- is riddled with exactly the issues they are trying to avoid. 4. On 1 hand, prop told us bribery laws are ineffective at reducing bribery, on the other hand they explain how these laws prevent some corps from bribing & thus impose an unfair disadvantage. So it seems that we now all agree that the laws DO have efficacy in preventing bribes. Prop are now concerned that those who don't or can't bribe will be disadvantaged. This is a ridiculous argument, best illustrated by an analogy:Those who don't exploit workers are at a financial disadvantage. Should we abo

Individuals should be free to harm themselves. If an individual wants to harm themselves, they should be free to do so.

We don't need legal rights, the government should do what they want The government is made up of knowledgeable individuals that will be able to make the correct decisions in order to run the country effectively. Interference by the general populace would only hinder the decision making policies that our government has the knowledge and ability to create.

Abolishing anti-Bribary laws allows criminals to escape accountability The goodcompanies.com website reminds us all that good practices stem from private initiatives, not governmental orders. CSR is all about realizing how to better address your consumers by letting them know how benevolently responsible you are. Taking that away from corps will surely deprive them of some added value. Let us finally analyze the situation imagined by the Opposition. They say that corporations can hide their trails by acting through middlepersons and avoid punishments. But how would the Opposition imagine then a successful prosecution without actually finding those middlepersons that lead back to the corporations? One cannot judge “the corporation” because not “the corporation” is bribing, but that senior executive, that Mitsubischi worker, that small, pervert and greedy group who doesn’t know how to do business otherwise. So you need people first of all so that you are able to gather proof, either way. Otherwise, why destroy a corporation’s reputation of years due to a temporary defective management? As collective identity has repercussions over all members, wouldn’t the Opposition agree that labeling a corporation as “corrupt for giving bribe” would harm all parties involved, including innocent people? But it is exactly this need to be able to act on individuals, and not diffuse responsibility, that is cornerstone to countering bribery and corruption. Fining corporations does not “hit them where they’re vulnerable,” on the contrary. Big corporations like Microsoft have no qualms in breaking the law and paying millions and billions in fines, as long as individuals in senior management know they will not personally suffer the consequence of their actions

phones should be allowed in school See Argument above. No new information has been presented.

Allowing Hate Speech Discourages diversity The need for interaction is all the more reason to ensure that all ideas are in the marketplace. This way, the veracity of all ideas are questioned. For example, if someone brings bigoted ideas with them as a freshman, perhaps because these ideas were prevalent in the community they grew up in, if they cannot express these ideas and be challenged they may never attempt to integrate. Instead, they will gravitate to those who share their ideas and remain isolated.

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate. ACCEPTED!

That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers There is a problem in our society. Certain areas, and certain demographics, are entrenched in a cycle of crime and poverty that is destroying lives and communities. America imprisons more people than the Russia under communism, or South Africa under apartheid, and the continuing discrimination faced by people who were previously criminal forces them to remain in that poverty and in that life of crime. I propose a clear solution. Employers should have no access to record of past criminal convictions, and should not be allowed to ask about past convictions in interviews, similar to the way it is illegal to ask about sexuality in a job interview. Judges, however, should be allowed to stipulate that a criminal should be banned from a particular career path, like being a CEO for someone who has committed fraud, or working with children for a paedophile. I will show that judges should be allowed to make that decision, while employers should not. I will also show that judges will be better at making that decision under my proposal. Crime is an awful thing, but so is discrimination. I"m going to show two things. First, that employers do not have a legitimate right to hand out additional punishment to past criminals. Second, that my proposal aids in rehabilitating past criminals. Employers do not have a right to punish people in this way. Our society has determined that the nexus of punishment should be the courts, and there are very good reasons for that. Firstly, judges are accountable to the state. This means that they are able to take rights from individuals (like employment or freedom) while the employer is not; because the judge is an agent of the state, and represents society. Secondly, a judge is a trained professional, and is thus more able to determine what is in the best interest of society. An employer cannot be expected to understand the social impacts of their decision to systematically deny these people jobs. Third, a judge has access to the whole story. When an employer looks at a criminal record, they simply reject that applicant. There is no discussion of mitigating circumstances or what lead to that particular crime. That means that people lose a potential job, regardless of whether that is actually what they deserve. Fourth, judicial decisions will be better under my proposal. Judges, when trying to decide on an appropriate level of punishment, currently have to predict what will happen to that criminal out in society. Judges shouldn"t have weigh the irrational response of potential employers, especially when that employer will make their decision based on a popular conception of the risks associated with criminality. That conception is constantly changing and may have no relation to reality anyway. That leads judges to impose sentences that are different to what justice requires, because they are trying to compensate for that. Furthermore, strict limits must be placed on when we allow employers to discriminate. An employer"s perception of threat cannot be the test; we have anti-discrimination laws precisely because employers cannot be trusted to do that rationally. At a very minimum, that discrimination must be because of something directly related to the work they are doing. I"ve already said that judges can place restrictions if there is an actual threat, and judges with access to expert testimony are able to do that better then employers. Moreover, employers can and should judge everyone"s trustworthiness and competence at the point of the job interview, because not all untrustworthy people have a criminal record. Irrationally trusting to a computer record that doesn"t give the full story and which has the stigma of criminality attached to it means employers are not fulfilling their duty in actually determining trustworthiness. Criminals deserve to be punished but that punishment ought be appropriate to the crime. Judges can determine that, not employers. My second argument, is on how this affects rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is the most important aim of the criminal justice system. Firstly, given that criminals are going to be released, society has an interest in them not committing more crimes. Secondly, given the overwhelming statistical co-relation between poverty and criminality, it is often the entrenched policy caused by the governments own failures that cause that criminality, so the government has a moral duty to try and fix that problem. Criminality isn"t usually an innate and inalienable part of someone, but is caused by a confluence of circumstances. To commit a crime, a person has to have need, opportunity, and an ability to rationalise the behaviour as "fair" or "just". My proposal helps with all three, and so makes recidivism less likely. Firstly, on need. When people are systematically denied a job they are more likely to need to resort to criminal behaviour to provide for themselves and their family. In the most extreme cases they need shelter and food and are driven to crime to provide that. But even if welfare covers the basics, wealth is a part of social status in our society, so a job with the prospect of advancement, productivity and promotion is more likely to cover the need for that sort of status as well. Moreover, the systematic loss of dignity involved in being denied job after job after job drives people into gang culture in order to restore that dignity. Secondly, on opportunity. When people are being systematically denied jobs because of a criminal record, those employers that are willing to overlook that record tend to have multiple ex-felons working for them, because there is virtually nowhere else they can get a job. This means two things, first, that the employer has a captive labour market and so can get away with never paying more than minimum wage, which speaks to their need. Secondly, it means those people are always exposed to other criminogenic elements, which provide them opportunity to commit more crimes. Every day at work, and in the slum neighbourhoods they are forced to live in, they meet people in gangs, people with access to drugs, people who can sell stolen goods, people who have certain criminal skill sets, who can crack safes, launder money, get guns, have a hideout, can make false IDs. When those people are all concentrated in one area it creates more opportunity for them to commit crimes, if they can get jobs wherever they want they are less likely to have that opportunity. Thirdly, on the ability to rationalize the behaviour. When someone feels they are a part of an underclass that is systematically discriminated against then they are less likely to feel beholden to the laws of their society. Nearly 40% of African-Americans will have a criminal record by the end of their life. Part of the reason for that is the poverty forced on them by the discrimination of employers. Another part is that in certain areas that population feels like they are being shut out from society unjustly. This doesn"t just speak to preventing recidivism, but beginning to fix the systematic alienation of African-Americans also prevents the original crimes, because youths in those areas are better provided for by their parents, but also because they feel less alien as a whole from the society whose laws we wish them to obey. They will feel more like those laws are legitimate, they will feel more like society represents them when it makes those laws, and so will be more likely to obey them. How can an employer be expected to know the harm they are doing to society when they deny a felon a job? They can"t. The state should intervene to protect people from recidivism and the creation of entrenched cycles of poverty and crime. I proudly stand in proposition.

IP Rights motivation for creating and developing The thrill of the hunt is what drives many to innovate; the money is merely a bonus. Was Da Vinci rich in proportion to the amount he created? Did Tesla die a wealthy man? If you look at many of the great innovators over time, you will find that they did not do it solely for profit. They wanted to create, to satiate a need deep inside themselves. Even the creator behind the polio vaccine claimed no patent[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk]]. To say they created great works because they solely wanted profit is to insult their memories, and we on side Prop stand firmly against this ideology. More importantly, our advocacy only pertains to disabling copy-protection technology. The remaining arsenal of IP protection techniques is unchanged. It is still illegal to profit from another's work, prosecutors can still charge pirates, courts may still award damages to compensate for stolen work. IP law that includes a Fair Use clause protect those who own the IP rights a work from significant loss. It does not allow others to profit directly from their work-e.g. the reprinting of a novel for monetary gain, or burning of DVDs to sell on street corners. What it allows is for people to either use the works to spread knowledge or create new intellectual works based off of previous ideas. Would the Opposition find it unreasonable for a student to quote a text if it was cited correctly? So, how does it differ if instead of writing a paper, the student was putting together a video presentation, where instead of written document it was oral and instead of quotes, they had movie clips? How, in essence, do movie clips differ from written quotes? The media does not define the message, just as breaking copy protection should not define illegality. Current copyright law reflects the reality of a period when content was physically tied to an object. Holding to antiquated notions of copyright helps no one.

Anti-bribery laws lead to increased inequalities and new loopholes (response). Effectiveness: Prop argues that bribery laws are not the means to reduce/prevent bribery based on the number of prosecutions p/a. Aside from the fact that this is a correlative rather than causative measure of effectiveness, we have shown the legislation to be useful, given that: 1. Corps are deterred from bribing not only because of potential fines, but because of the enormous financial cost of entering into a lawsuit, in addition to the toll on resources & reputation. The latter, prop has told us, is of critical importance to corps. 2. Prosecution & effective prevention are not the same thing. Large numbers of corps being investigated under anti-bribery legislation shows that the laws provide a necessary legal framework for crucial scrutiny into potential crimes & prevention of injustice. Harms: 1. Prop claims those unable to bribe due to tough legislation are disadvantaged as less-regulated corps WILL be able to pay bribes. The suggestion here appears to be that we level the playing field by abolishing laws, so a negative practice becomes available to all, equally. After conceding that bribes are bad for society, Prop’s suggestion that we remove laws ‘in the name of fairness’ seems both contradictory & dangerous. 2. Prop worries that “corporations will take their businesses elsewhere (where bribe is much cheaper)”. This points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Today’s anti bribery laws explicitly prohibit bribing FOREIGN officials, aiming to ensure corps cannot take advantage of corruption overseas. Corps opting not to invest in ‘corrupt’ countries also incentivize those places to eradicate corruption in order to stay competitive globally. Above all: bribery endangers communities’ health, steals wealth & shifts it to the pockets of corrupt government officials.[[http://is.gd/UOsFLY]] This isn’t just “unfair”, it is gross injustice. Business competition cannot stand above protecting human rights.

Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital. Thank you Con. On Con"s "loop-hole", stating that "any" laws, including past ones, would be followed; this is one absurd legal theory. Slavery would still be illegal, discrimination would be illegal, etc. The whole point of "lawmaking" involves changing bad laws made before. It can be safely assumed that "follow the laws" means the current ones that cops will arrest you for and juries try you for. On con"s second point; Con points out that some states legalize certain things on Con"s "ban" list. The laws of the other states and the federal governments would still apply; colarado police won"t arrest you for possession of marijuana, but federal agents will, and any state you try to transport it to will. So, in essence laws are tricky. However, the merits or lack thereof of marijuana or whether exotic animals should be owned are all rich topics in and of themselves; arguing that the import is wrong for those reasons is to argue that the domestic law is wrong, something that would still be a problem if imports are not around. Since imports have to legally go through customs, legally all products sold by foreigners must be legal. Con"s argument simply does not follow. So then we get to the crux of the issue; economics. Con argues that free trade hurts American jobs. Firstly, even considering the larger 700,000 number con used, and assuming, despite this assumption being entirely in Con"s favor, that each person had 3 dependents, that would be 2.8 million Americans affected negatively by the free trade...and 297.2 million Americans would benefit from this freer trade. However, it is easy to forget human suffering when dealing with statistics, so let"s deal with another one; that jobs created from the import of foreign capital into America. The Japanese car industry, while not yet the level of the "domestic" industries, employs many people and keeps most of the money it invests in the U.S. [1] This is just from one country and one industry! And consider the price of cars because of the competition; how many people would be worse off because they could not afford a vehicle? However, "what about the 700,000?" one may ask. The question here is whether the correlation is the cause. In the U.S, both employer and employee pay for food stamps, WIC, and unemployment insurance, to name just a few. This increases the cost of employing someone and creates an artificial floor of productivity a worker must reach; an employer has to attract a potential worker with a really high wage to off-set the problems the employee will face in collecting as much money as the employee needs. However, if an employee does not produce enough wealth to justify that wage, then it is not a lasting arrangement. The jobs lost were using scarce resources in a way that was not economical, and the whole point of the lay-offs, from a macro-view, is to free up labor for more urgent tasks. The 400,000 seemingly chronic loss of jobs, then, is where the insidious effects of the welfare system come into play. Unemployment insurance, in paying for time laid off from work, incentivizes staying unemployed longer than if one did not have unemployment insurance. Food Stamps, WIC, etc. pay based on income level; this means that there is a gap between a welfare-eligible income and a welfare-free and living with more benefits than welfare would provide. Within that gap is a place where, after taxes and accounting for the lack of welfare, a person is poorer than a person earning less and accepting welfare. This incentivizes under-employment, or part-time jobs. Add this deleterious effect with the problem of central banking; inflation increases imports as substitutes in foreign countries become cheaper by comparison [2]. So, again, the U.S. is responsible for it"s economic woes; we have only ourselves to blame for not competing in a competitive market. And on a final note, the welfare issues and the central banking issues would still be problems without any imports at all. The imports at least help the common citizens of the U.S. in providing new capital and selling cheaper alternatives, both of which help to fuel an American economy that continues to be hampered by her government. I turn this back to Con. [1]http://www.edmunds.com... [2]http://www.colorado.edu...

The cap would deprive individuals with bad credit of possibility to borrow We find it very important that it is not the state, but the individuals who make decisions about their future, because they are the ones who know the most about their own situation and circumstances. We consider that people are able to make rational decisions and they should be allowed to do so in this case. Consider a person who wants a loan for some purpose, but has a very bad credit history and very few valuable assets at her disposal. There are plenty of banks, but none would lend anything to him at lower than 30%. It is not because of the greediness of the bankers, it is because her profile is extremely risky and risk needs to be compensated with a higher return. But as long as the person rationally agrees to borrow on this rate we do not find any reason why the government should forbid this exchange, because she is the one who can most accurately weigh the benefits of the loan with comparison to the financial and emotional costs of defaulting. The state could interfere here if there would be tangible third party harm, however, in a lending contract there are only two sides - one side borrows what another side lends. We find that it is completely up to these people to determine any price for the lending (which is interest rate) since any case have different risk, maturity, and number of other factors. In addition, high interest rates deter excessive borrowing; therefore, it would never boost any bubble or cause another sub-prime mortgage crisis, as was previously alleged by the proposition. High interest rates serve for contraction purposes and allow economies to get to their fundamental values. There is no third party harm here, whatsoever. Instead of limiting a choice by banning some options state may ensure that more information is provided for individuals. In the case of quick credits sometimes people are just not aware of the interest rate they will be paying. So the government could increase transparency and allow individual people to make more informed decisions. For instance, regulations could require explicit statement of absolute amount of interest. Also, it is a good idea to require all loan companies to clearly show annualized interest rates in their advertisements to avoid any confusions. Finally, we contend that sometimes borrowing at a high rate for individuals may be a choice of the last resort. For example, a person needs a small credit for basic needs: food, rent and to be able to take care of her family. The pay for her job is due only in a week so short term loan despite the high interest rate is simply the best choice. If interest rates are capped, then that person would not get a loan, since her risk profile does not correspond to the interest the lender gets. We see both parties – both the lender, and the borrower worse off in this case.

File-sharing Should Be Allowed The internet allows for more plurality and gives music listeners more choices than commercial radio ...

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate. First I'd like to apologize for such a delayed response. I've been busy with holiday stuff, family events, and the like. I'd again like to give my opponent a final thank you for accepting my challenge and providing very thought provoking arguments. In this round I will be providing my closing remarks. 1. Economic effects: Businesses are in the market to make money, and discrimination is economically not beneficial for the business. Businesses are in a constant struggle to balance profits and losses. When a business practices discrimination, they are imposing a cost on themselves that would not exist if they would practice more tolerant policies in the workplace. If a business is turning down a worker that can provide a better service for a lower cost, they are imposing costs on themselves by having to find other employees, and possibly employees that either cost more, do not perform the required duties as well, or both. Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman states, "A businessman or an entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence, in a free market, they will tend to drive him out" (1). Businesses actually prefer to conduct more tolerant policies. Historical evidence supports this, First, the Jim Crow laws of the states of the South specified that certain jobs in industry could be done only by white workers (1). But if the industrialists were intent upon discriminating, why did this preference have to be enacted into law? The answer is that to preserve the status of the white worker, there had to be a legal restraint upon employers. In the absence of the law, competition from non discriminating employers would have urged all to hire and promote blacks and whites on the basis of economic value, not race. The reason for the adoption of the policy of Apartheid in South Africa in the 1930s was that white workers were furious that so many blacks were being hired and were competing with them in pay and promotions. Therefore, they persuaded the government to restrict the better-paying jobs to whites only (2). Further evidence on the relationship between capitalism and discrimination is found in the considerable affluence many "free persons of color" in the antebellum South were able to achieve. These were free blacks who had no political power at all, but could own property and do business as they wished. For example, in pre-Civil War New Orleans, free Negroes owned one- fifth of the total taxable property in the city (4). 2. Freedom of contract and association: According to the first amendment of the constitution, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (5) Article 20 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states (6): -Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. -No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interest" (7) Here, unlike in the U.N. Declaration, there is no explicit recognition of the correlative right to refrain from association. However, the European Court of Human Rights read Article 11 as implying a negative freedom of association in Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom in 1981, a case that involved mandatory union membership imposed on employees of British Rail (8). As we can see, these rights of association applies to all individuals all around the world, as stated in these legal documents. The importance of freedom of association can be summed up with this quote, "The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow creatures and of acting in common with them. The right of association therefore appears to me almost as inalienable in its nature as the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without impairing the foundations of society" (9). 3. How these rights relate to others: Let's say I am a fan of punk music, and my friends ask me to attend a pop concert with them. I decline, since I would much rather go to the punk concert that same night. Obviously, me being discriminatory toward the pop artist is hurting the pop musician, since they are technically missing out on an opportunity to receive more financial assistance and employment opportunity, but it would be crazy if we went door to door requiring punk fans to attend the pop concert, so that the pop musician is not denied financial assistance. Replace the punk fan with a business owner, and the pop musician with a hopeful employee. Once again, I'd like to give my opponent a final thank you, and good debating! 1. Capitalism and Freedom, pp. 109-110 2. http://www.nps.gov... 3.. http://www.sahistory.org.za... 4. Race and Economics by Thomas Sowell, p. 40 5. US Const. amend. I. Print. 6. http://www.un.org... 7. http://human-rights-convention.org... 8. http://www.hrcr.org... 9. Tocqueville, Alexis De. Democracy in America. 152. Print.

Bailouts Should be Banned If a company collapses, then there will be temporarily painful repercussions. But as more companies arise, this will all heal. And trust me: if a product is in demand, there's almost certainly somebody in America who is willing to make it. This will lead to more jobs. Also, giving bailouts encourages political corruption. And what about our government, which is already in debt over its head? Uncle Sam has got to start saying "No!" more often. Bailouts were one thing he should've said no to.

A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy BOP: Pro claims that he only needs to find a single example of a beneficial government intervention to fulfill his burden of proof. This is absurd—he claims that “a free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy”—to prove that, he needs to show that a free market would be harmful overall, not just in one specific case. Definition:Free market—a system of voluntary exchanges based on respect for private property rights. To the extent that there is respect for private property, there is a free market. [Source? As a market anarchist, I think I would know.] Government intervention—for the purposes of this debate, any actions of the United States federal government 1. PatentsContrary to popular belief, IP hinders innovation rather than encourages it. Patents can increase the amount of revenue an inventor would receive for a given idea, but this greater incentive does not necessarily translate into more ideas. Patents also discourage innovation by causing patent-holders to waste much of their time suing people who violate their monopoly rather than inventing. Patents also discourage innovation by restricting the ability of people to improve on existing ideas. Look at the invention of the steam engine. James Watt thought of the idea in 1768, but production didn't really start until 1775, when his monopoly was secured until 1800. Production was slow during those 25 years, and exploded afterwards, and when a superior steam engine was developed, Watt spent most of the 1790s suing its inventor. [1] Because of Watt's monopoly, innovation stalled during those years, with fuel efficiency, for example, stagnating during Watt's patent, but increasing by a factor of five by 1835. [2] This delay of innovation had serious consequences, as the industrial revolution only took off in England after Watt's patent expired and the industry could thrive. But would Watt have had the incentive to invent the steam engine if patents didn't exist? Yes. He actually made most of his money after his patent expired. He was forced to constantly innovate to keep up with the competition, and, as a result, his steam engines were recognized as the best ones and thus the best-selling.What about pharmaceuticals? Don't we need patents for those? No. Historically, the pharmaceutical industry grew much faster in countries were patents were fewer and weaker. The unprotected German industry, for example, grew much faster than the protected British industry, which is the opposite of what you'd expect if IP laws actually encouraged innovation. [3] And when countries did introduce patents, they saw no significant increase in innovation. Switzerland and Italy both had thriving pharmaceutical industries without IP laws, until they were introduced in the late 1970s. [4] Contrary to what one would expect if IP laws actually worked, neither country saw an improvement in pharmaceutical innovation. [4]2. Insider TradingHaving information that others don’t have and acting on it is how all money is made in the stock market. If everyone knew that a stock was going to go up, you wouldn’t be able to make money buying that stock—the only way you can make money with your information is if other people don’t know it. (If a stock was going from $10 to $100, and you knew it, you could make a profit buying now and selling later. But if everyone knew this was going to happen, no one would sell you their stocks at $10.) And people acting on this information that others don’t have is a good thing. Everyone can’t have universal knowledge—knowledge is spread out over millions of people. The way this knowledge is communicated is through prices. Stock prices communicate knowledge about the health of firms. The more accurate these prices are, the better. Say Firm X is fundamentally insolvent, and is heading toward bankruptcy eventually. It’s better for the economy if this happens sooner rather than later, so resources stop being wasted by the inefficient firm. That’s where stock prices come in—if they’re low enough, some person or other firm could buy a controlling interest cheap and sell off the assets. So, it’s better for the economy if speculators drive Firm X’s price lower.What’s the moral and economic difference between this and “insider trading”? Nothing. Inside traders act on information that others don’t have, which is no more unfair than anyone else in the stock market acting on information others don’t have. And their actions communicate vital information to the market, like the actions of any other successful traders. By acting on accurate information, inside traders make stock prices more accurately reflect a firm’s true value, and let capital be allocated more efficiently. They also lower the volatility of stock prices—they buy low, making the low price higher, and sell high, making the peak price lower. Pro states that if insider trading happens too much, outsiders will “lose confidence in the system” and stop investing, lowering the amount of capital available for corporations. But he fails to provide any facts or evidence to support this assertion. Furthermore, the “outsiders” who trade with insider traders were going to trade anyway—the inside traders didn’t force outsiders to buy or sell their stocks, they just bought stocks people wanted to sell or sold stocks people wanted to buy anyway. And because of the inside traders extra demand or supply, the outsiders get a better deal than they would have—if I want to buy a bunch of Firm X’s shares, because they’re $9.75 now and are going up to $15 later, then I’m actually helping the sellers. They were going to sell anyway, but because of my extra demand, they got $10 per share instead of $9.75. 3. ExternalitiesPro claims that “a truly free market would not prohibit a party from maximizing its profits.”—so firms would be allowed to hurt people by dumping dangerous waste, and such. Of course, this is a ridiculous description of the free market. In the free market, you can only do what you want with your own private property if you respect the property rights of others—this is why the government, which initiates force against person and their property, is not part of the market. Maximizing profits is only part of the market if you do it while respecting the property rights of others. Firms dumping waste on other people’s land are not part of the market.Pro also claims that companies would dump waste in common lands. But the free market easily solves this problem—with private property. There are only common lands if the government intervenes and makes them so. In a free market, these lands would be someone’s private property, preventing corporations from dumping their waste on it if they didn’t own the land. While air couldn’t be owned, air pollution that damages the air someone breathes, or the property they use, would be a property rights violation, and thus impermissible in a market.Other cases of removing government intervention:War:War spending is terrible for most Americans. Resources, labor, and money are diverted from creating more goods that consumers want to creating destruction and death halfway around the world. Imagine how much better off Americans would be if they had an extra few hundred billion dollars, because the money for war spending wasn’t stolen from them by the government.Corporate Welfare:As with war spending, billions is diverted from hard working Americans to special interests. Agribusiness alone gets around $180 billion annually from the government. [5][1] Carnegie, A. (1905), James Watt. Doubleday, Page & Co.[2] Lord, J. (1923), Capital and Steam Power. London: P.S. King & Son.[3] Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 215.[4] Scherer, F. M (2003), "Global Welfare in Pharmaceutical Patenting," mimeo Haverford College, December.[5] http://bit.ly...

Intellectual property rights allow individuals to release their inventions into the public domain More ideas are not released into the public when there is intellectual property. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting intellectual property rights. The ideas circulating in the public domain are only expanded by the constant competition and innovation essential for firms to succeed in the absence of intellectual property protections. improve this

The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters Matters relating to how individuals conduct themselves in a private and consensual environment are arguably not the concern of the state. This extends to how people get married and within which tradition, religion or denomination. European states are increasingly allowing non-traditional marriages such as gay marriages[1] so not allowing arranged marriages for those who want them would be a perverse step backwards. Given that arranged marriages in themselves do not have any proven harms, and that, as it has already been asserted, the harmful side of arranged marriages, like forced marriages have already been outlawed, the state cannot keep regulating something with such an arbitrary and wide-ranging definition that includes so many consenting adults.   Were EU states to do this, the harm caused would risk infringing on the very rights of the people the proposition claims they are meant to be protecting in the first place. [1] ‘Countries Where Gay Marriage Is Legal: Netherlands, Argentina & More, The Daily Beast, 9 May 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-netherlands-argentina-more.html

This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes Before I begin my extension for my proposition case I'll start by apologising for misinterpreting your point and I'll adjust my rebuttal accordingly to the very best of my ability. Con's argues "that the government's infrastructure and foundational principles will be shattered" if we restrict prisoners freedom of speech. I would like some more in depth analysis on how this is the case because I believe it's a good point to bring up and I would like to rebut it correctly as I have failed to do so far however I will begin rebuttal here. Freedom of speech is a very important right I agree however at the moment I fail to see how this restriction is going to cause as much damage as you claim it will. We are restricting the right not removing it and I can see how it may seem counter intuitive but the freedom of speech is not an inalienable right. This means that the Government does have the power to restrict it or remove it where it sees fit to do so. I feel that it is pointless trying to justify this in a social context because the very nature of being a prisoner is to be removed from society. I don't believe we are restricting their freedom of speech that much anyway. They are not allowed to sell information about crimes they have committed because I see this as infringing upon the rights to privacy of the victims of those crimes committed and because your freedom of speech is not an inalienable right then the Government can do this. I will use my previous argument as rebuttal to back up my social contract point. Freedom of speech is not an inalienable right because it can be taken away or given up. It is a respected right by those who keep their side of the social contract as part of a democracy. When someone breaks the social contract you are removed from society and your views are not represented in the democracy as highlighted by the government from removing prisoners from the voting roll. Your expression in politics is not regarded as valid because of the disregard for the social contract and that is part of your freedom of speech therefore it is not a false example and my argument may NOT "be disregarded". This strongly relates to my rebuttal for con's point about "oppression of individualism" so I will make this my first substantive case. I'd like to point out that this debate is about a change in policies since I am arguing as the British Government therefore there is no "contradiction between a government and it's own policies". I believe that this new policy I am proposing should be passed and that can't simply be rebutted by saying it contradicts the policies it is going to replace (in terms of this debate). I agree with the point you make when you say "individualism itself is what brings about the voice of the population, for which the government is not only dependant upon, but also imperative for our societal welfare to remain intact without compromise" but I can prove however that this point falls on my side of the table (pro). I'd like to reinstate that the nature of being a prisoner is that you and your political opinions are removed from society to indeed stop the compromise of our societal welfare. As the government I am highlighting another problem which I feel is causing a harm to this very same societal welfare. The harm being that prisoners are allowed to sell information about their crimes without any respect for their victims. Crime becomes an even easier way to make a living and what we see is so bad about this is that the bigger the crime the more it can be sold for because of the increase in media attention. Hence the glorification of crime. (Apologies for not being able to explain it better sooner. ) This means that "bigger" criminals would care less about going to prison because they can make money from it as well as giving extra grief to their victims. Prison is just a mere inconvenience now. When the government stops this easy money game it only affects those who are willing to use it i. e. "big" criminals, fame seekers or martyrs. These three types of criminals damage society and can cause more damage when they are given this platform to work on in our own legal system. Most criminals will not be affected by this because most criminals don't chose to sell information about their crimes but some do and it's these types of criminals that are willing to sell the information that cause the harm which can be stopped by proposing this motion. By inciting this extra media attention on the victims of the crimes the criminals oppress them even though the victims are usually still within the grounds of the social contract and as my opponent says should be as far as possible free from oppression. So since freedom of speech is not an inalienable right the government has full legitimacy to act and restrict the prisoner's freedom of speech. On to my second substantive argument, media restrictions, which I touched on briefly before but I will go into far more detail here. The police are restricted in the information they can give to the public in order for a fair trial to be held and the victims respected. The media looses respect for this when some individuals are tempted to buy information off of the criminal or the victim or both for the sake of a better story. In Britain we do not allow cameras inside our courts because we find it inappropriate for legal cases to be treated as a show room. Why then do we allow this lack of respect from the media to continue. Media ethics are under fire because they crossed too many boundaries. These boundaries were crossed because of lack from the media towards peoples privacy and a lack of respect towards our legal system. By also criminalizing acts which seek to extract information about cases for the inept of publication the government imposes restrictions on the media reinstating the serious nature of crime and the need for the media to respect our citizens. I would like to quote myself here because although this point was raised before I believe it is far better suited here. "When the Government is seen to take a harsher new on the situation and implement more safeguards for the public they are seen to be taking more interest in their primary concern of keeping their citizens safe and taking crime more seriously they gain respect. By allowing the facts to be manipulated to the benefit of the criminal prevents the trial from being overly influenced by already influential perceptions. It drags victims into the media spotlight causing them unwanted and unnecessary stress. It allows the media and the criminal to capitalise on crime and it allows the facts to be skewed by bias manipulating the public view. " This means that the Government now also has pressure from the media along with a natural pressure from the public to give accurate information while still being respectful towards the victims and to bring about the truest course of justice since there is now less biased public perspective. The government now has more of an incentive to insure the out come is the right one not the most popular. Restricting media coverage can help combat the fuelling of stigmas that result in hate crimes. The media instinctively knows these types of crimes as big sellers and they are only big sellers because they can exploit the information to fuel as much heated discussion about the crime as possible. When the media is being restricted and their ethics are under scrutiny they are more likely to respect the police response which is as unbiased as possible then unnecessary fuelling of hatred is reduced. The more the Government can do to restrict media responses that fuel hate crimes the easier it will be to combat the stigmas which are at the root of these crimes which also stops groups of people being oppressed allowing individualism and benefiting society. Thank you.

Politicians should not be allowed to personally benefit from legislation they vote for or draft The corruption of politicians can be halted by preventing them from personally benefitting from their office during their elected term. All too often, politicians will take donations, or charge "speaker fees" in exchange for promoting a company's or special interest groups agenda via votes or drafted legislation. It is my position that a politician would better serve the interest of his constituents if he did not put these groups or persons above the overall interests of residents in his state. One way to better serve the people is by refraining from making money for oneself or ones family/friends as a result of proposed legislation. I propose that politicians need to submit to related regulatory controls on a regular basis.

Corporate culture necessitates treating corporations as a collective, rather than as a collection of individuals We do agree with the practice and trends in today’s times, but corporate culture doesn’t give us solid reasons to justify a person’s irresponsible or immoral.If we take into account the “collective power” aka the corp, there’s a strong argument coming from a powerful experiment in 2011: “Collectivism may promote bribery by diffusing responsibility”, allowing individuals to sidestep their own morals and do business in ways which they know to be illegal. [1] http://bit.ly/mUzZg6 So a more plausible scenario is that the Mitsubischi worker would feel less responsible for accepting the bribery mechanisms if the anti-bribery laws make the corp accountable (notice that here, the corporation is the “bad guy” from the start, as everyone presumes it’s going to cheat). Which means that this whole framework transforms its purpose into enforcing more surveillance on employees for corps so that they catch the “potential cheater” in the company at an early stage. So coming back to our point: there’s always a choice, even for our poor Mitsubischi worker. If there’s blackmail or harassment involved, there are harsh punishments for that, as there are a lot of whistleblowers, advocacy groups and anti-corruption movements in civil society to loudly denounce such misbehaviors. But he has to know that breaking laws is neither a good practice, nor something attributable to the company only, when the employee is guilty. Enforcing such a law against corps is simply giving an excuse to employees to blame their companies, which is another unintended damaging effect. As for the company, the Opp team seems to forget how important top management is, as well as reputation. Current CEO of Statoil (the famous Norwegian oil company) publicly admitted that “the corruption scandal has tarnished Statoil and Norway’s reputation abroad”. [2] http://bbc.in/oEiOlS For its Iranion bribes, Statoil was fined 1.6mil pounds in 2004 for corruption, when there was no anti-bribe

Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed Thank you for the opportunity. However, I disagree with your argument on several points. Your first claim is that corporate failures are not a social cost. This proposition assumes that SOX was designed to prevent corporate failures, but such is not the case. Corporations can fail for a number of reasons aside from fraud and shady bookkeeping practices. Failing to adapt to a changing market is one example. (http://www.utvi.com...). SOX does not insinuate itself into marketing decisions or product development. It merely says, if you're going to do business in this country, you're going to do it honestly and fairly... or else. However, even assuming the intention of SOX is to somehow stabilize corporations from collapse, the failure of a corporation through deceit and fraudulent practices most certainly exacts a social cost beyond investors and employees. Notwithstanding, to minimize investors and employees as a "select group" within society belies the large number of individuals who are employed by Corporate America. In 2007, 63% of the American public comprised the civilian labor force in this country. (http://www.census.gov...). I'd venture to say that a large portion of the population works for Corporate America in some capacity or another - a number in the tens of millions. Those people make up the employees and investors whom you say are the "very select group" that corporate failures affect. Whether you define "costs" in financial or moral terms, the effects of the insidious type of corporate failure marked by Enron and the like, have rippling effects not only throughout a large part of our county, but the world as well. On top of the financial effects of losing one's job or investments, the feeling that one can't trust one's employer or business partner to act with integrity and fairness stifles growth, prosperity and career aspirations within the workforce. Further, it tarnishes the image of Corporate America in the eyes of the nation and the world. Such a pessimistic view also negatively influences domestic and international economic stability. When you state "[t]he public does not really suffer from organizational collapses in anything but the short term," you admit that there is some social cost that reaches beyond just investors and employees. However, the current economic climate, which is predicted to last for a substantial period, should tell you that corporate instability can have long-ranging effects both in terms of time and scope. Factories and homes don't get sold, and people don't get new jobs as easily as you write it. Your second claims posits that investors can police their own investments. I agree. However, they can only do so to a certain extent. The natural structure of a corporation involves a dissemination of certain information that goes from top to bottom. Information that the average investor has limited to no involvement in gathering, analyzing, compiling, or presenting. Those tasks are entrusted to a select few, such as top-level executives, board members and accountants. If the information is false and misleading, should the investor be held at fault for relying on the fraudulent actions of those people? Moreover, should the crooks be let off with a mere slap on the wrist and an empty wallet? People lose their life savings, their pensions, their kids' college funds. People lose their dreams because of these greedy, selfish liars. You point to Aksia's work in the Madoff case of to show that investors have resources available to them to monitor their investments. However, the availability of resources is not the issue. Aksia became suspicious because of the three-person accounting firm and the "high degree of secrecy" surrounding the trading of the feeder funds. Based on those "red-flags," Aksia advised its clients not to invest. (http://www.bloomberg.com...). Nothing in their work revealed the depth of the deception Madoff employed. The only thing the Madoff case proved is that people are going to act irresponsibly despite the law, and its relevance with respect to SOX is minimal at best. SOX does not protect investments as you state. In sum, it provides for auditor regulation, executive accountability, independent oversight, timely and accurate dissemination of information and stricter penalties. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). SOX won't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it does make it harder for them to get away with it. When it comes to corporate fraud, it's not the incompetent people that are at fault, but the greedy ones. I agree that corporations should stand or fall on the strength its ideas and leaders, and if someone isn't smart enough to get his money out when the ship is sinking, then tough on him. However, I do have a problem with liars and crooks. There are too many tragedies in the past decade to ignore the problem and let Corporate America to its own devices. Perhaps there may be some flaws in SOX in its current state, but not enough to repeal it. Changes and amendments can be made over time, just like any law can be altered or created to adjust to the current social climate. Even the document upon which our nation is founded can be changed if the people so choose it. The benefits of accountability and integrity that SOX exacts from Corporate America ring true to the values that many Americans hold, and outweigh any minor imperfections it may have at present. That said, I respectfully disagree with your position on the issue.

Coporation should be allowed to donate money to political campaign All of these arguments could be used to say that anyt other group of people should not be able to donate to campaigns.For example:"Women shouldn't be able to finance any part of any politician's campaign, since their influence on the making of the advertisements could be used to persuade the public to accept a "candidate's political ideology" that's really meant for their own benefit, and not men's.""Black people shouldn't be able to finance any part of any politician's campaign, since their influence on the making of the advertisements could be used to persuade the public to accept a "candidate's political ideology" that's really meant for their own benefit, and not white people's."You do know a corporation is just a group of people like any other right?

Allowing grey goods breaks down monopolies and passes on lower prices to consumers. Allowing grey imports means that manufacturers do not concentrate economic power in a monopolistic way which can be damaging to free trade (even Adam Smith1believed certain monopolies were antithetical to free trade). Banning them is tantamount to granting a licensed monopoly or cartel on a country-by-country basis, which inevitably means higher prices for consumers. As manufacturing has increasingly been relocated into a smaller number of offshore countries, rather than in the country of purchase, it makes sense that other parts of the supply chain should make a similar move so that they too can realise the efficiency benefits of a globalised economy. 1 Smith, Adam, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" 1776 improve this

SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS My argument is that the stock markets are unreliable, unpredictable source for keeping the savings or surplus funds. Stock markets need people who think differently from the crowds to succeed. Stock markets are sentiment driven many times which is unknown factor x. I do not contest the need for companies to invest or mobilize funds for their expansion, growth etc. If they need funds, why not they resort to offering shares at fixed guaranteed minimum fixed returns so that their needs are met and the investors interests are protected. Even the Investment companies, Public funds prefer a more risk free atmosphere for making investments. The mutual funds, the investing companies,the Public funds often lose heavily due to stock market fluctuations risking the investors/contributors. The companies to can offer better guaranteed return to their shareholders even if the companies are not listed or traded in the stock markets. When you can remove the risk, why persist with unpredictable stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of millions is my argument.

Murder should stay illegal Even though everyone would be allowed to kill freely, there is the chance that the population would decrease dramatically. Because murder would be legal, there is no way to stop someone from becoming the next Hitler of our age. You would not be able to stop terrorist attacks because terrorists would be allowed to kill freely. Murder is wrong, no one should have to die innocent (in mass groups) because the law allows.

In regards to free speech, corporations should have the same rights as individuals if they are spending money on the campaigns. When a corporation and an individual are both trying to achieve the same goal, they should be able to do so in the same way. It would be unfair if the campaign finance reform limits the amount that an individual could contribute, but not that of a corporation when it is apparent that corporations are contributing considerably larger amounts than individuals as seen in the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations need to have the same rights and limitations on campaign contributions and economic freedom. This was why the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on spending by corporations was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Act in 2010. This led to the Super PACs because they represent an association of people and have the right to freedom of speech and political preference. Reforms, such as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) may have been successful in curtailing interest groups role as investors in campaigns, they failed when it comes to candidate advocacy as a result of super PACs. Such regulations that limit large-scale political spending from interest groups serves to limit speech crucial to political groups without a broad base of support or political entrepreneurs like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that got its message aired when the national media was ignoring the issue. Moreover, bans on corporate contributions did not prevent alternative ways for candidate advocacy, such as the private satellite radio station of the National Rifle Association or the movies made by the Citizens United[1] These alternative ways could undermine the principle of fair and transparent campaigns more than the lack of such limit on spending from individuals and corporations and their political expression. [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.58-9

limit the free speech rights of corporations that are granted legal personhood. Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.

Illegal Immigration Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country.

Intellectual Property should not be monopolized Intellectual Property such as patents and copyrights should not have a monopoly over their potential competitors. Just because someone made the discovery first, or has the money to buy the rights of the technology, they should not be given an unfair advantage of the market. Companies such as Macintosh have patents on the "tablet", which makes it harder for other developers to create similar products without being sued for "stealing" the idea of that type of product. Just because Apple was the first to sell a widely popular tablet computer doesn't mean other companies cannot use similar technologies to create their own versions. Laws that protect intellectual property sounds good on the surface, but in reality it just slows down innovation of new products and technology, and hurts the economy because of a monopoly created due to ownership of patents and copyrights. Knowledge and information is power and laws that restrict free use of knowledge ultimately hurts everyone.

Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA. If 4 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea, does that mean that one enjoys it?

THW allow the buying and selling of human organs. Arguments will be in the next round.

It should be legal to stalk someone Introduction I believe that, in this debate, there were two main points of contention. First, which side benefits stalking victims the most? Second, which side benefits the rest of society the most? While both sides have raised valid points over the issues, the opposition side has taken the upper ground for both of them. Points of contention 1. Benefits to stalking victims In round 1, I argued that stalking victims would be better off with stalking laws since they would not receive help from authorities if they didn't exist. In response, Pro claimed that stalking was easy to prevent and escape from, and that allowing stalking would cause people to take more responsibility for themselves. Pro's point was refuted by the fact that, in the status quo, people already take a lot of responsibility due to high profile cases of crime being reported in the media; if Pro's motion succeeded, we would hear less about cases of stalking in the media and people would end up being less, not more, responsible. I have also demonstrated that stalking victims are less able to defend themselves from stalking if they have no help from authorities, since their efforts to escape their stalkers would eventually fail, and reporting stalking to authorities is the best way to stop a stalker in their tracks because intelligence agencies and police stations have more access to resources than a stalking victim could ever have. Pro fails to adequately address this point in later rounds; in round 4, he simply stated that it takes a long time for stalkers to create new online accounts and ranted about how feminists are "offended by sensible advice". I have also argued that anti-stalking laws reduce stalking because they create a legal disincentive to stalk. Pro fails to refute this point. As seen above, Pro has consistently failed to refute the notion that banning stalking would lead to less stalking. Thus, the opposition has won this point of contention. 2. Benefits to the rest of society In round 1, Pro asserted that stalking laws are sexist. He stated that women were more likely to be stalked, but did not state that this meant stalking laws were sexist, or even clearly connect the statistic of stalking of women to the alleged sexism of stalking laws. Thus, the argument was ignored in my round 1. Later, in round 4, Pro brought up the statistic again, and this time clearly linked it to the sexism of stalking laws by stating that the statistic demonstrated that the law was treating one gender better than another. In response, I demonstrated that whether a law's enforcement is sexist does not determine if the law is inherently sexist. I provided the example of laws against violent activity. Black people are more likely to be incriminated by laws against murder, theft, and drug dealing, but that doesn't mean banning murder is racist; it only demonstrates that we need a fairer legal system. While it would have been better for both debaters if the point was debated about earlier, it wasn't explained well by Pro until the fourth round. I believe that I have demonstrated that the sexism of stalking laws hasn't been shown to exist, much less be severe. In round 1 and 2, I demonstrated that by banning stalking, we provide an incentive for stalkers to get tested for psychological conditions that often cause stalking as a part of legal defense. Banning stalking gives stalkers help. In response, Pro argued that making stalking illegal "alienates" stalkers and doesn't help them. I have shown that to be wrong, because stalking is stigmatized both in the status quo and under Pro's motion, the benefit of not being imprisoned gives stalkers a reason to find psychological help. Pro's motion is thus worse for stalkers than my side. Pro's logic in banning stalking laws is that because stalking victims can help themselves escape stalking, stalking should be allowed so that they would be more careful. I have shown that to be illogical because murder victims can also avoid murder—don't go out at night, and don't anger others—and yet we haven't allowed murder to make people more careful. Pro's logic can be used in justifying permitting murder. Pro's attempts at making my reductio ad absurdum itself seem absurd were, in my opinion, refuted by my arguments that made murder similar to stalking. Conclusion In this debate, I have shown that anti-stalking laws benefit stalkers by allowing them to get aid in avoiding stalking and that they benefit society as a whole. Thus, let it be resolved that it shouldn't be legal to stalk anyone.

Doping should be allowed I will accept your challenge, and I will argue on the pro side: doping should be allowed in sports. While it may be unfair currently, where athletes are strictly forbidden to athletes and only those who are willing to win by cheating will dope, if the practice is open for everyone, it will create a fair, level playing field since every athlete will have the ability to use the substances. Sporting events are spectator events, meant to showcase the most athletic individuals in the world for the entertainment of the viewers. If there is a substance that is able to enhance the performance of an individual and therefore make the spectacle more impressive, and the athlete consents to using it after being educated on any possible ill side effects, then they should absolutely be allowed.

cannabis should be allowed for everyone cannabis should be allowed for every one because think of the medicines we could make.and it helps with cancer.

Anti-bribery laws lead to increased inequalities and new loopholes Current laws make bribery harder for corporations. Even if these laws don't block all bribery, that would not justify abolishing the laws, since they still provide very effective prevention and deterrence, as we've shown in our points. Prop seems to lament the lack of effectiveness of the current anti-bribery legislation, believing that bribes still exist, but now in “smarter” guises. To this we have 2 responses: 1.Legislation is not expected to be 100% effective. Society’s laws are equally moral statements of what we do and don't believe to be acceptable ethical practice. Criminals’ ability to ignore laws, to circumvent them or to avoid being caught when they disobey them is no reason to stop legislating against wrongdoing. Just because criminals are getting harder to catch and bribes are becoming more sophisticated, does not mean that we should surrender our legislation to them. 2. We should also bear in mind that corporations, aware of the danger of potential prosecution, are deterred and disincentivized to use bribery, because even if they don’t end up in court, they would like to avoid the enormous hassle and expense of handling an inquiry. This is a strong incentive for corporations to clean up their acts. This also makes bribery not worth it across the board, which refutes the “uncompetitive advantage” argument. Secondly, team Romania seems to think that anti bribery legislation “makes bribes more expensive.” Indeed - high risk, illegal procedures usually have their price. But, clearly making bribery more expensive and more difficult is in no way a bad thing. Thirdly, team Romania seems to be pessimistic about law-abiding companies falling prey to these laws while corrupt companies avoid punishment. Team Israel does not believe this to be the case. Proposition would have to prove that there are enormous failings in global judicial systems to prove that the innocent will be consistently discriminated and the guilty consistently forgiven.

Companies and governments should be allowed to collect private data without permission or a warrant. my above arguments stand, as that was the acceptance round

Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied.  Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist.   There are restrictions related to the public good.  The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited.  Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society. Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning.  Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression. Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency.   However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process.  Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.

The Federal Government should mandate that stocks must pay dividends :t of all, by issuing these bonds and encouraging investors to take them instead of cash, the companies in question ARE simply reinvesting the profits, to be paid out at a later date... Not simply. Additional transaction costs. If a limited number of investors understand the value involved, potentially prohibitive transaction costs. "[I need clarification on what exactly your second sentence states" The absence of federal interference is sufficient in the long run to ensure most companies eventually pay out dividends. :"Economy", like "country" is a specific entity and CAN be harmed. GDP is an example; No, GDP is not an example-- it does not provide a reason for the collectivist notion that an "economy" as such has interests, values, motives, the potential to be harmed. It is simply an aggregation of cash transactions, which represent gains or harms for many individuals, but not generalizably to all.Incidentally, it is a poor measure of even how individuals are doing on average. If I pay you a million dollars to scrub my back, and you pay me a million to scrub yours, the GDP shoot up by 2 million, despite the only actual value being a pair of backrubs. In a free market, of course, this will not occur. But a government that has an incentive to pad its GDP numbers on the other hand, as has the power to encourage such transaction pairs-- you never know what it might convince people to do, and governments like that (governments that regulate economies) are both your advocacy and the fellows who convinced people to engage in widespread adoption of the GDP measure in the first place. :If you want to argue that the "economy" was not harmed by the 1929 stock market crash, I welcome you to try, but I doubt you could pull that off. It is you who upholds the positive position on "Economies are evaluative entities, capable of being harmed." To argue a negative against nothing is pointless. :And to force someone to do something "for their own good" is neither what I'm trying to do, nor something necessarily bad anyways. This mandate is supposed to prevent or limit the boom/bust cycle That can be achieved by removing credit subsidies. If this mandate has any effect, it's just to drop the boom part closer to permanent bust territory. :And all safety laws are based on forcing someone to do something for their own good. And your point? Your reductio takes you nowhere, I am opposed to such laws. :If you want a more accurate analogy for my idea, how about drunk driving? Drunk drivers not only pose a threat to themselves, but also a threat to those around them This is a LESS accurate analogy, because companies directly reinvesting profits poses a threat to no one who has not chosen to engage with the company. :same as a bubble economy and those who cause it pose an economic threat to those in it. A "bubble economy" does absolutel zilch to those around it. The only people who can be harmed by any company engaging in purely economic action-- are those who choose to engage in trade with it. Those "Around it" is another word for those who choose not to trade with that company nor any companies that do. :Many people who didn't get involved in the housing speculation have seen their net worths go down Name one, and his career, and I will show you the involvement he chose :). :In practice, large firms looking to invest their money don't research the companies or securities they invest in themselves Then they deserve whatever happens to their money. :And when a company falls and its assets turn toxic, it can drag down a lot of other companies that had otherwise been very prudent, Describe this company and it's "prudence." :One final point: A good you purchase only for the purpose of speculation is a good that will eventually collapse. There is no good that has no purpose but speculation. A stock being without dividends is by definition either temporary or fraudulently. The former has useful purposes, the latter can be sustained about as easily by the workaround bond measures you've already described, perhaps even easier (Bonds may not be efficient, but they do invite less scrutiny than immediate reinvestment directly from one's profits).

Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA. http://www.youtube.com...

Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA. http://www.youtube.com...

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

Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering. 1 United Nations. 2006. "Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010". United Nations Development Program. Available:  2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. "Patent Wrongs". Mises Daily. Available:  3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'". The Guardian. Available: improve this

The United States should allow the limited use of torture. The limited use of torture should be permitted in the United States in order to safeguard the wellbeing of the general public. This policy should be put in place because torture can be both an effective means of acquiring information, and it can be reasonably justified in some circumstances. These circumstances may include any case where tremendous amounts of human wellbeing are placed in jeopardy. Undoubtedly, some may be worried that allowing this policy would pave the way for all sorts of unnecessary human rights violations. But ultimately, this is not the case; torture can be conducted with moral justification and in a way that can be reconciled with the pursuits of a civil society. C1: Torture can be a feasible means of gathering information. Despite what many people may believe, there is ample evidence to suggest that torture can be an effective means of gathering information. Consider, for example, the French military's use of torture in Algeria. In 1956, the Algerian FLN (National Liberation Front) initiated a terrorist bombing campaign in Algiers that often targeted civilians. As a result, the French Government, with the aid of Gen. Jacques Massu, began a counterinsurgency campaign in Algiers that included the strategic use of torture. [1] With these tactics and a powerful military presence, only months later France was victorious over the Algerian forces. In fact, the campaign was so successful that the English military theorist Brian Crozier put it like this, "By such ruthless methods, Massu smashed the FLN organization in Algiers and re-established unchallenged French authority. And he did the job in seven months -- from March to mid-October." [1] This strong evidence from history indicates that it is possible to use torture as a feasible means to gather information. Additionally, there are other cases in recent history that would seemingly provide strong reasons to suppose that torture can be used effectively in dire situations. In 2003, a law student named Magnus Gï¿½fgen kidnapped Jakob von Metzler, the 11-year-old son of a prominent banker in Germany. [2] After the kidnapping, Mr. Gï¿½fgen murdered the 11-year-old boy by wrapping his mouth and nose in a type of duct tape. Later on, he was captured for his role in this crime, and when he was questioned about this incident, he refused to provide the whereabouts of the child. Fearing that the child was in imminent danger, German authorities sought and received legal permission to bring in a torturer to extract information. And as soon as the torturer came in, Gï¿½fgen, not wanting to be hurt, disclosed where he had put the child. From this incident, it seems quite clear that torture can help produce valuable information. C2: Torture can be ethically justified in certain circumstances. Given the increasing proliferation of destructive technology, it's possible to envision a scenario in which the refusal to administer torture would not only be unwise, it would be perverse, especially given the prospects of nuclear terrorism. Martin Hellman, a professor of electrical engineering at Stanford, who has been focusing on nuclear deterrence for the past 25 years, estimates that there is a greater than 50% chance that a nuclear weapon attack will occur in the next 80 years unless the number of weapons and available weapons-grade material is radically reduced. [3] Moreover, organizations that make it their business to study nuclear proliferation, such as Harvard's Belfer Center, now agree that a terrorist organization acquiring a nuclear weapon is a very real danger. [4] And according to the Belfer Center, "In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent — and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear attack than that a state would." [4] Therefore, the potential that we can gain information about future terrorist attacks that utilize nuclear material is very real, and it becomes progressively more likely as nuclear material continues to proliferate across the globe. Consequently, it should be evident that torture can – at least potentially – help us avoid nuclear catastrophe. C3: Incurring collateral damage is far worse morally than the torture of certain people. Torture should concern us far less than collateral damage during wartime concerns us. Inevitably, certain parts of any military campaign simply won't be successful, and these mishaps are occasionally responsible for killing innocent men, women, and children that were not the intended targets. And unlike terrorists, the victims of collateral damage are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. As such, the death of innocent children from collateral damage should be far more troubling than the temporary discomfort of avowed terrorists. Sam Harris, a philosopher and neuroscientist, points out the following, "What, after all, is "collateral damage" but the inadvertent torture of innocent men, women, and children? Whenever we consent to drop bombs, we do so with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, disemboweled, paralyzed, orphaned, and killed by them. It is curious that while the torture of Osama bin Laden himself could be expected to provoke convulsions of conscience among our leaders, the unintended (though perfectly foreseeable, and therefore accepted) slaughter of children does not." [5] Indeed, it is truly bizarre that collateral damage is less morally troubling to most people than judicious torture. Furthermore, even if we were resolved to only fight defensive wars, the point would still remain. Whenever any nation engages in modern warfare (for either offensive or defensive purposes), thousands of innocent people will certainly be killed, blinded, and maimed as a result. Thus, if we are unwilling to engage in torture to achieve certain objectives that are of grave importance, then we should also be unwilling to wage modern warfare. And if we are willing to wage modern warfare, then it logically follows that we ought to allow the limited use of torture. ::Conclusion:: Historical evidence regarding the utility of torture and moral reasoning both suggest that torture may truly be preferable in some scenarios, especially in ‘ticking time bomb' cases. Of course, certain people may still be worried about the possibility of torture being used for non-essential purposes if it were allowed. In attempting to calm these fears, Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, suggests the following, "we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice." [6] Whether or not we can all concur with Dershowitz on his specific proposals is irrelevant. The point is, of course, that there are situations where torture can be conducted with oversight, accountability, and moral justification. Thus, there are good reasons, both practically and morally, why the United States should allow the limited use of torture. Sources: 1. Schulz, William F., and Juan E. . Mï¿½ndez. The Phenomenon of Torture Readings and Commentary. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2007. p. 255 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.cbsnews.com... 4. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu... 5. Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. p. 194 6. http://edition.cnn.com...

Politicians should not be allowed to personally benefit from legislation they vote for or draft I agree there is corruption is government. But it seems that the pro speaker does not understand were it is or how to really stop it. The examples brought up will not be stopped and "benefit" is non specific and can make the problem worse. The donations taken by politicians is how they run a for office and try to stay there. The donations are also not a benefit from legislation, it is just giving money to someone you like. The amount is limited, and is only used for the campaign. Now the speaker fees do go personally to the individual but this is also not from legislation that was voted on, it is just someone speaking with some credentials. Bill Gates and Carly Fiorina do speeches for money too. We must also address that being a politician is there job. They need money too. The amount is also restricted to change. They work hard, change the country, and make some cash too. We might see how much and say it is way too much for what they do, but they could easily move to the private sector and make way more. Being a politician is not all dandelions and cash, it is grueling and hard.

We don't need legal rights, the government should do what they want Yes but even if they are knowledgeable individuals that doesn't mean they can be completely trusted. If they have complete power to do as they wish, eventuality they will start doing things for their own gain. Nothing will be able to stop those in power from doing as they wish with the country, and that will not only negatively affect the people of the country but also how other countries see the said country as a whole

The law should not condone illicit behaviour The law should never be changed so as to make provisions for the most morally blameworthy of behaviour. The girls may have some sympathy among the public, however, how can it be legal for men to pry around women and pick and choose who they wish to take to bed that night? How can a Christian society be seen to condone such behaviour? We may have a secular society, but the morals that run through our fibres are that of Christian teachings. The law should not be able to go against such moral fibre of its society for any amount of benefit; seen as the detriment to society’s moral balance would always be a far greater factor to weigh.

only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point. but it's still the only fair thing to do. unlike con says, the person wouldn't be left to die, per se. well, they would, but it's at the expense of others who would die if he doesn't. that is, there's a line of people who want the organs. why should the guy who wasn't an organ donor himself get dibs? he shouldn't... that's not the fair thing to do.

Corporate rights protect owners from liability. Corporations have a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation). Without such protection, corporations would face significantly more challenging barriers to market entry and survival, which effectively narrows the scope of competition in the marketplace. Less competition in the marketplace comes at the cost of the consumer who will have to select from a narrower variety of choices.

Prospective Job Applicants Should Not Be Asked To Reveal Prior Criminal Convictions http://scholar.harvard.edu... http://www.economist.com... http://www.sfgate.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.forbes.com... Okay, I would first like to apologize. I was unaware that you were able to post direct links to your sources, and I agree with my opponent that without these links my points did seem invalid. However, I have posted links to most of my sites, therefor all of my points are now backed up. Secondly, I will give a roadmap for my third and final speech. I will first refute the Opposition's points, then strengthen my own team's points, and in the end I will weigh this debate. REFUTING The Opposition has not layer any new points on the table, and seeing as I refuted his original three in my previous speech, all of the Opp/Con's points remain refuted, and not standing. STRENGTHENING 1) Everybody deserves a second chance. Judge, nobody is perfect, and we cannot expect anybody to live a successful life if we prohibit them from making mistakes. We cannot move forward until we move past what has happened before, but by making people's criminal records follow them everywhere, we are not allowing forgiveness or the chance to learn from your mistakes. 2) Not getting a job can lead to reoffense. This debate has been going back and forth about how it could or could not lead back to reoffense, but what my opponent is failing to understand is that, rather correlation OR causation, it more commonly does vs doesn't cause reoffense, and should we not base this debate off of what is most likely to occur? Yes, showing that this point remains valid. 3) Disregarding applications from criminals is classified as discrimination. This is according to the New York Times, (and yes I have sourced it). Discrimination is anything that unfairly biases a select group of individuals. This proves that it IS discrimination because we are unfairly disregarding applicants with criminal history, leaving this point valid. 4) This will help with unemployment. Judge, a statistic from Minneapolis University showed that once the 'ban the box' act was passed, the number of criminals finding jobs increased from 6-60%, and unemployment rates steadily decreased. Not only did this help their economy, but the ex-convicts as well. This is causation rather than correlation, because nothing had changed except for this new law, and therefore it must have been the cause of such a significant change. 5) It will bring down the prisoner rate. This relates to my second point, because if there is less reoffense there will be less prisoners, and therefore a better economy. WEIGHING Judge, I would like to put this is a simple format; what will happen in the rite of we go with the Proposition(pro) vs the Opposition(Con). Pro: There will be a more fair and just society, where people can live natural, human lives, with mistakes and learning. There will be less discrimination and unemployment, less prisoners, so therefore a lower tax rate., and a better economy. A better economy lets America remain the economic innovative powerhouse it is looked upon as, and will impact everybody positively. Con: If you go with the Con, however, there will be an unfair and inhuman society, where people are prohibited from making mistakes. It will be ridden with discrimination, there will be higher unemployment, and more taxes. The economy will be harmed, and the United States will have less power and strength than before. Our country will no longer be known for its accepting nature, but rather for its inhuman standards. As you can see, only one of these visions is possible. Judge, as you can see I have now refuted all three of the opposition's points, and all of mine remain standing, showing that the proposition should win this debate. Also, I would like to point out that even if all the Opposition's points were still standing, and my refutes were invalid, the Pro side would STILL win this debate, because having an accepting nature and powerful economy will outweigh anything the Opposition says, because it impacts everybody. Thank you all for your time, and I strongly urge a vote towards the Pro side of this debate.

Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech.   Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas.  Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard. Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech.   For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period. Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging.  Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally.  In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists.   These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.

Intellectual Property should not be monopolized It has been all I could do to post my arguments on time, as college has just begun and hence has kept me very busy. My closing argument(s) will be brief, because I do not think it will require much character usage to show that I as “the negation” should win this debate. R1: My opponent has certain responsibilities (as the affirmative) that he has not fulfilled. My opponent started this debate. He is the one who wants to enact a policy that would change the status quo. As such, it is his responsibility to show tangible harms that cannot or should not be tolerated (hence the need for change). He has not done that. My job, as the negation, is to show the harms of enacting his policy, which I have done in the previous round. I showed that authors could potentially be harmed by enacting his ambiguous policy. We do not even know what the purpose of his policy is. He says: “…if someone wanted to open their own restaurant, that they shouldn't be able to call it "Burger King", just because said a large company said, no that's their name. ” My opponent doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of trademarks or copyrights, or patents on inventions. They are preventative measures meant to ensure that inventors and/or entrepreneurs still have an incentive to innovate. If Burger King’s owner or culinary development team didn’t have exclusive rights to “the Whopper” what would stop somebody from visiting a Burger King franchise, ordering a whopper and deciding that they wanted to capitalize on the “Whopper name”? The harm in that instance is clear and it applies to every single argument my opponent presented. If a creator of any kind does not feel that their product is protected, where is the incentive to innovate if someone could just swipe the proverbial rug from under their feet within a matter of moments? R2: Under the “status quo” we have protections for creators, which is all I have to defend. Last round, I showed with just a limited group of creative professionals (authors) how important it is to protect the rights of creative minds, and how harmful and disparaging it can be when those creative protections are infringed upon. What reason is there to take the risk in affirming my opponent’s resolution, in which he gives us no clear idea of what he actually wants to enact? I am still not sure of the complete ramifications of his bill, because he’s failed to show what he actually wants. It is not the fault of the negation that my opponent had to spend half of his second constructive attempting to explicate his personal opinions. He has no case examples of when or how the current copyright laws have harmed any actual businesses or creators. I, on the other hand have shown you (using just authors, because the same harms can basically be extrapolated to other creative professions) concrete examples of the positive impacts of the current legislation. The lesson of today’s debate is do not bother to affirm a bill when its creators don’t give you ample reasons to do so. Since we have no idea the ramifications of the bill my opponent is proposing the logical mind, must stand with me in negating this shoddy bill. Thank you.