The topic is: A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy. I started this same debate, but my opponent forfeited. I've literally cut and paste from my other debate. First round includes substantive arguments. In order to win this debate, I must show at least one example of a government intervention into the free market that, if removed, would harm the economy. I will present three such examples: patents, insider trading, and market externalities, 1. Patents Currently, the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to issue patents and copyrights for a limited duration. This is an intervention into the free market, because it prevents competitors of the patent holder from engaging in a competing enterprise. However, in the absence of such grants, the economy would be harmed because there would be less of an incentive for companies to develop new pharmaceuticals. Although invention occurred before the issuance of patents and copyrights, much of the innovation of the 20th century, particularly in the area of pharmaceuticals, occurred because patents permitted the holder to guarantee a period of economy prosperity, which in turn justified the development of new products. In the absence of patents, there would be a substantially reduced incentive to develop new drugs, which would harm the economy. 2. Insider Trading Federal laws prohibit the use of "insider information" to make decisions about buying and selling shares on a market exchange. Although the set of rules surrounding insider trading is beyond the scope of this debate, it generally prohibits people who have non-public information from using that information to buy and sell stock (usually of a company that they work for or are affiliated with). This is an intervention into the free market, because a totally free market would permit people to buy and sell stock using whatever information they have available. However, if insider trading was permitted, many investors would not have sufficient confidence in the stock market to invest their funds. Investing money into the stock market is always considered a risky venture because most companies have the potential to go bankrupt. However, most investors rely on publically available information to make their investment decisions, and feel confident that the market price accurately reflects all available information. If "insiders" such as corporate executives have access to secret information, such as the fact that a new product is likely to fail, or the company is about to be purchased by a competitor, they can use that information to make a large profit. The result is that "outsiders" stand to lose significant money in their investments. If this occurs often enough, investors will begin to lose trust in the system, and may choose not to invest their money in the stock market entirely. The stock market is the primary method of raising capital for corporations, and a lack of capital would hamper productivity, which harms the economy. 3. Market Externalities A market externality is a cost placed on someone other than the person who receives the benefit. For example, a company which dumps toxic waste into a river gets a benefit (a cheap place to dispose of waste), which people downstream on the river get a cost (it damages their land). Currently, the federal government regulates interstate waterways to prevent the dumping of toxic waste. This is an intervention into the free market, because a truly free market would not prohibit a party from maximizing its profits. However, if market externalities are not regulated by the government, the country will actually lose productivity. In a scenario where there are no controls on pollution, companies have an incentive to destroy common lands, such as rivers, public fields, and the atmosphere by disposing of their waste products. This is efficient for a company, because they don't bear the full cost of the waste disposal, yet receive all of the benefit. However, this leads them to pollute more than if they did have to pay the full costs. The result is that there is more pollution than optimal. If this reaches extreme levels, short sighted companies could permanently damage waterways and the atmosphere, which would significantly harm the economy. Conclusion Although most people would agree that there should be some government interventions into the free market, others take an absolutist view that there should be no such interventions. I believe I have demonstrated three reasons why, at the very least, there should be some interference with the free market.

A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy

Suspected insider trading Some conspiracy theorists maintain that Just before 9/11 an "extraordinary" amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks and speculate that insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks. "Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options.[citation needed] On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks. American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses. Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps. Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day.[citation needed] The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that "Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions."[69] The report further stated: Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options " investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price " surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 " highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Air defense stand down theory A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur.[66] Conspiracy theorist Mark R. Elsis says: "There is only one explanation for this ... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11." One of the first actions taken by the hijackers on 9/11 was to turn off or disable each of the four aircraft's on board transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplane's tail number, altitude, and speed, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD"s radar screens, making them very difficult to track. On 9/11, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. A passenger airline had not been hijacked in the U.S. since 1979.[74] "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Only one civilian plane"a chartered Learjet 35 with golfer Payne Stewart and five others on board"was intercepted by NORAD over North America in the decade prior to 9/11, which took one hour and 19 minutes. Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.[2] The longest warning NORAD received of the hijackings was some eight minutes for American Airlines Flight 11, the first flight hijacked. The FAA alerted NORAD to the hijacked Flight 175 at just about the same time it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. The FAA notified NORAD of the missing " not hijacked " Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD received no warning of the hijack of United Flight 93 until three minutes after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. Israeli agents See also: September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories: Israel It has been claimed that Israeli agents may have had foreknowledge of the attacks. Four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for "puzzling behavior". The Israelis were videotaping the events, and one bystander said they acted in a suspicious manner: "They were like happy, you know ... They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange." While The Forward, a New York Jewish news magazine, reported that the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives, a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in the United States said that they had not been involved in any intelligence operation in the United States. The FBI eventually concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.

Did George W. Bush Play A Role in 9/11

1) My opponent claims that Jewish insider trading is a normalcy and happens on a regular basis. This is true, but not in the amount of money we are discussing at this junction. Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Authorities believed, and some continue to maintain, that trading insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.—Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options. On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks. American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses. Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps. Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm. 2) How can you possibly argue that Mossad agents, (spies) of Israel dancing and cheering at the towers crumbled a coincidence? They were also found to have over 4200 US dollars in cash, and maps of NYC (blue prints) in their van. It is literally impossible for the equivalent of American CIA operatives (Israeli Mossad agents) to be doing this at this exact time and date and it being coincidental. 3) That's exactly my point. This attack is good for Israel because Americans will be in the Middle East fighting "terror with us". What is the US doing now? Bombing Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq etc. The average leader would express condolences, but his immediate response is it would be very good for Israel? 4) Your answer to my argument is that it requires further investigation. Because you have the burden of discrediting my points, you have by default conceded my argument in number 4. I will however follow up and say that I urge you to review this youtube video of the foxnews report on Amdocs and espionage in the United States. http://www.youtube.com... 5) How is the FBI finding a massive spy ring of Israeli nationals a coincidence? 6) We cannot let any government explain anything. Too much trust in government violates our personal sovereignty. We must question those that govern us. Buy relying on government to "educate and take care of us" we take another step toward tyranny.

Israeli Involvement in 9/11

By agreeing to the terms of service, mods are fully allowed to do whatever they want to you in an event if they see it nessacary, if you don't agree with this, you should leave the website. On the other hand, because they are a biased group doesnt mean their money should be stripped, they are legally allowed to have whatever opinion they want.Really this is just another low quality debate with no point to exist.

Sodahead is elitist, and I'll go a step further and say they should be stripped of their money

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.

Doping should be allowed

I ask that the viewers of the debate not put Mr. Speaker's forfeit against him. I reiterate my previous points and once again await my opponents rebuttal.

A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable

Puppies should be allowed to own and operate their own mills. It could really improve the economy and plus be super adorable.

Puppy mills should be illegal.

This is my first ever debate, so I'm trying to get my feet wet here. Wish me luck! I wish to debate Mr. Speaker on the topic of a speculation tax on Wall Street. The first round will include me initiating the challenge (which I have done) and my opponent accepting the debate. After that, there will be three rounds of actual debate. Here's hoping this goes well!

I accept. Many thanks.

Monopolies should be illegal

i belive that monoplies should be allowed because normally they were smarter and deserve to own a monoply. Componies like Standard oil should not have been split up. It is wrong

Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

Although it saddens me to see that my opponent has once again forfeited the round, I once again reiterate my previous points.

Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands

not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients

Burden of Proof: The topic is "a free market devoid of ALL government intervention…" If I can show that not ALL government intervention is bad, then I win. If there is one form of government intervention is good, then not ALL government intervention is bad, and I would win. Patents: He says: Patent law causes inventors to waste time suing Not even close. Maybe in the 1700's, but today, it's the lawyers that do the suing, not the inventors, especially not the scientists working for a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company. He says: Watt's steam engine proves patents are bad I don't have access to the sources he's citing, but note: I focused on pharmaceuticals, not machines. The idiosyncrasies surrounding a single invention during the Industrial Revolution is hardly a test case for the entire IP system. He says: Pharmaceutical don't need patents The patent system in America is the primary reason why America has the largest amount of capital invested in its pharmaceutical industry [1]. "For developed countries, it has often been pointed out that suppressing pharmaceutical patents would entail long-term, dynamic losses in terms of new medicines…" [2] "[P]atents are a fundamental incentive to innovative activities in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology." [3] Insider Trading: He says: That's how you make money Contrary to what most people think, the stock market isn't about making money (and if you read my introductory argument, that's not what I care about either). The stock market is a mechanism for corporations to raise capital in order to continue or expand their business. So if insider trading hurts that ability, then it's bad for the economy. He says: Stock prices reflect the health of the company No – in fact, this is exactly my point. If the CEO knows that the company is insolvent, but is hiding it (like the Enron case and many others), they can manipulate the stock price while making large sums of money on the inside information. Eventually, the ruse will be detected; the stock price will plummet, but not before the CEO makes a huge amount of money. The resulting negative publicity will further erode confidence in the stock market. In a world where this is commonplace, there won't be enough confidence to operate a stock market, capital will become scarce, and that will be bad for the economy. Even if your argument is that trading on inside information helps reflect a more accurate stock price, this becomes useless when the individuals doing the trading have the ability to manipulate the stock price to their own advantage. He says: No effect of insider trading Think again: "Our markets are a success precisely because they enjoy the world's highest level of confidence. Investors put their capital to work- and put their fortunes at risk - because they trust that the marketplace is honest. They know that our securities laws require free, fair, and open transactions. An essential part of our regulation of the securities market is the vigorous enforcement of our laws against insider trading…" [4]. They later continue: "But one of the main reasons that capital is available in such quantities in the U.S. markets is basically that the investor trusts the U.S. markets to be fair. Fairness is a major issue. Even though it sounds simplistic, it is a critical factor and one that is absent, really to a surprising degree in many of the sophisticated foreign markets.... The common belief in Europe that certain investors have access to confidential information and regularly profit from that information may be the major reason why comparatively few Europeans actually own stock. [This may] partially explain why the U.S. markets are so active and why so much money is available for those companies that seek to enter U.S. markets." [4]. He says: Outsiders were going to buy and sell anyway This is non-responsive. I said that if insider trading is widespread, then people won't invest, and the economy will suffer. Even if they would buy and sell, they WON'T buy and sell if there is insider trading, and the economy goes down. Externalities I'll put the definition debate here. He says: Free market means respect for private property rights First, his warrant is ridiculous – he's a "market anarchist", so HE KNOWS… How about some definitions: "an economic market operating by free competition" – Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." – Collins English Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com...) "A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation." – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (http://stats.oecd.org...) Free markets are simply millions upon millions of individual decision-makers, engaged in peaceable, voluntary exchange pursuing what they see in their best interests. – Professor Walter Williams (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...) Please note that NONE of these definitions (or the dozens of others I saw) include anything about "respect for private property. Furthermore, he says that in order to have a free market, you have to "respect the property rights of others." But – WHO WILL ENFORCE THOSE RIGHTS? The government. He tries to get around this basic necessity by defining "free market" as respect for property rights. But I'm sure he will admit that human nature may, from time to time, lead someone to display a lack of effect for the rights of others. The result is that we either have (1) the externalities like I described, or (2) some form of government intervention (i.e. laws, or a system of civil lawsuits, or some other "authority"). The only other possibility is conflict, which he says at the bottom of his argument is bad for the economy. He says: Privatization of all lands prevents externalities He still hasn't answered the fundamental question: who enforces property rights? He also says that air pollution is "impermissible in a market" – but do we all have the "right" to clean air? Who enforces that right? How clean does our air need to be? These are all questions that cannot be answered by the "market", nor by a system of private property. The problem of the commons requires government intervention to solve. Additionally, he says privatizing all lands will help prevent externalities. But take forests, for example. If the price of lumber increases, what will the result be? More and more private companies will buy forests, chop down the trees, and sell the lumber. Because lumber is limited by the amount of time it takes to re-grow trees, the price of lumber could rise considerably. In a pure free market, if the price goes high enough, companies might chop down most or all of the forests. But, if we remember from our fifth grade environmental science class, if there are no trees, we can't scrub out carbon dioxide and generate fresh oxygen. This is an externality, but there is no way for the market to prevent it. Other Cases In Favor of Government Intervention He talks about war and corporate welfare. I'm not going to defend either of those – but it still doesn't matter. I'll agree that there are lots of forms of government intervention which are bad. However, that doesn't mean that they are ALL bad – which was my original point. Less government = good No government = bad [1] http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu... [2] http://emmanuelcombe.org... [3] http://innovation.org... [4] http://info.worldbank.org...

Greetings, I am honored to have been challenged by name to this debate which will (hopefully) be an exceptional one. Since this is Pro's first debate, I feel obliged to offer a few brief pointers: 1. The debate topic is excellent as a speculation tax on Wall St. is a current, relevant issue. 2. Please define "acceptable" in Round 2. 3. Use as many credible sources as you can. With that said, I eagerly await Pro's opening arguments. Thanks, - Mr. Speaker

Monopolies lead to the following:1. High Prices on goodsWithout competition, the price of goods will soar. An unchallenged company will charge whatever they want because no one can offer an equal or superior product. Take Microsoft for example. Most computers these days are Windows operated. Only a small fraction of consumers can afford to buy a Macbook. While the Macbook has been catching on, they are still light years away from catching up to Windows and their client base. Microsoft can charge whatever price they want for microsoft office, computers, etc. and people will still buy their goods. This is dangerous for our free market when a company has near absolute power.2. No RegulationMonopolies like Standard Oil worked off the blood and sweat of their underpaid workers. Standard Oil made their workers work hours that by today's standards are appalling. The workers were paid very little for long and often dangerous hours.3. The Gap Between The Poor and the RichThe Wall Street protest have shown that the disparity between the rich and poor is still a major issue. If monopolies are able to function, the gaps between the two groups will only increase. It will be the barons of industry against the average Joe. In the end, the monopolies would win, just as history has shown before the government broke up the monopolies.

I am glad that you have posted this debate as it is a big topic right now. I gladly accept you challenge and hope to have a civil debate on this topic. As you stated, they are not actually considered gambling in the U.S. and in New Zealand even though they probably should be. If you look at Overwatch, one of the biggest games right now have micro-transactions in the form of loot boxes. There are 3 ways in the game to gain loot boxes; leveling up, playing the arcade mode which can give you from 3 to 7 boxes depending on the event that is up and finally of course buying them. These are like playing a slot machine but the thing is all of the items are cosmetic only and offer no competitive advantage at all. Overwatch, also every couple of months releases new game modes, maps and especially heroes, all given to each player for free with no extra cost. Overwatch should have them because they aren't asking for players to buy a season pass to unlock skins, maps, game modes and heroes. It allows the developers to get money to continually bring more free content for us gamers. Again, thank you for bringing this topic out and lets be fair.

Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games

The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion

we think that smoking should be allowed.

smoking should be illegal

Allowing offshore drilling is all about oil company profits

US offshore oil drilling

ACCEPTED!

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

1. That's making the presumption that the counterfieted bills would be enough to cause mass inflation, again this would force the government to step up on the quality and security of our billls, after all counterfieting ill happen legally or illegally.2. As a business owner it is my responsibity to make sure that the bills are genuine.3. I've never tried it, but it sure looks like ALOT o work, and even so why should laziness be banned?

Resolved: counterfieting should be legal in the U.S.

Offshore drilling prevents environmentally-unfriendly effects

Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore

I believe that secession should be allowed. First round acceptance and state your position DO NOT ARGUE YET. Please give a witty quote to go with the argument "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

A state should be allowed to secede if they wish

I fully agree with what you say. But I am questioning the need to have stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors and traders. Eating your favorite snack is one thing and losing money is some other thing I think. The demand supply dynamics in the markets are often manipulated and even some big listed companies manipulate accounts to boost the demand for their shares. What I say is that there are methods by which the companies can sell shares and offer better guaranteed returns for the investors without getting listed and traded in the markets. I only say that the stock markets, the trading places for stocks are often driven by unknown factors and make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors. 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. Eating junk food and losing your savings are different things according to me. What I want is that the greed for quick money is making investments in stocks an attractive option. There is no harm if we replace the stock markets with a system where companies mobilize funds and offer guaranteed and risk free returns, higher to other types of investments to their investors. That way both gain. The companies as well as investors.

SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

Uh oh...

should bitcoin be banned

Sadly, Con has forfeited. Just for the sake of it, here was the basic outline of the cases I was going to run: 1 - Sarcasm, e. g. the Onion, is "untrue" but totally newsworthy. 2 - Untrue stories should be allowed in articles because it is illegal to prevent any document from being published in the U. S. (except for national security documents). Only after the piece has been allowed in a story can it be removed or can the author be sued.

should not true stories be aloud in articles

While it may be a technically be a crime, it should again pertain to the points outlaid above on wether it is still ethically justified for the hack to take place, as it may uncover criminal activity or malpractice/corruption. Also, if the hackers genuine attention is to simply find a breach and report it - then what's wrong with that? And to respond to the analogy used by the Opposition, if someone found a way to get into your property, tried it themself and found it worked, but told you so you could fix it, then I am hard pushed to find anything 'fundamentally wrong' about it.

Stealing and invading privacy is fundamentally wrong.

"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.

SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit

i think assassins should be allowed to be in the world

should assassins be banded from the world

Definitions: Leftist: For this debate, leftist is anyone who is at least as left-wing as a social democrat, and as far left as a communist. Liberals, neo-liberals, etc are excluded since they support a capitalist system traditionally. Traditional/capitalist business: Any business which is owned by an individual or a few individuals at the top of a hierarchical chain of command for the business; they also make the decisions for the business. Cooperative: Business which lacks a hierarchy, and has the workers directly own the business, control the business, and vote on business decisions Structure of debate: Round 1: acceptance, definition of terms, rules for debate Round 2: Main argument Round 3: Rebuttals/conclusion. Note: I'll allow con to start their main arguments in round 1 if they choose, if they agree to waiving round 3 to keep the number of arguments even between us. If they do this, they must say in round 3 "I am waiving this round as instructed" Or something similar. Otherwise, you can follow the above structure In addition, I couldn't put everything in the title of this debate that I wanted. I am putting exceptions for cases where there is no other case but to shop at a capitalist company for the product you need/want. So, if con points out that it's not always possible for them to shop at cooperatives, I would agree with this and is not what I'm arguing against. Rather, I'm arguing that "When possible, leftists should shop at cooperatives and not traditional/capitalist businesses in order to not be considered hypocrites". That entire sentence would not fit in the title. This also has the exception of where the leftist doesn't know about cooperatives. It is true that majority of people don't even know what a cooperative is, so we can't blame someone who doesn't know about them for not shopping at them.

Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.

This debate is to be in public forum format. Round 2 will be speech 1. Round 3 will be crossfire 1. Round 4 will be speech 2. Round 5 will be crossfire 2. If my opponent has any questions, he/she may ask in Round 1. Pro wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be true than false. Con wins by proving that the resolution is more likely to be false than true.

Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Hi! I would like to debate on the issue of dopping which has been destroying the spirit of sports. Athlethes look more like robots than humans and it is unfair that some people win medals and competitions only because they consume substances that give them an artificial boost.

Doping should be allowed

I close my arguement with this. Would anyone debating what we debate on this site, ask in public for someone to come argue with them? No, you hide behind the facade of an avatar and a name online. This is not bad, nor is it good. but it does alienate you, you will never be able to have an interesting conversation with anyone in the real world out of fear of being called weird. This is anonyminity's fault, if it were not for it, being "weird" would be called being eccentric.

Anonimity should be a fundamental right

I will let my opponent go first.

Cigarets Should Be Illegal.

Actually, I wasn"t suggesting that people who have to buy water through an exchange. Commodity Exchanges sell and buy raw materials, as well as futures contracts on those underlying materials. [1] Moreover, commodity markets offer derivatives on raw materials as protection, a hedge, or as speculation, including purchasing Over-the-Counter derivatives, including derivatives engaged in purely speculative betting on the initial contract. [2] There are commodity exchanges that deal in purchase and sale of water, as Australia goes on one of one of its exchanges. [3] The Chicago Board of Trade described on Investopedia as: "A commodity exchange established in 1848 that today trades in both agricultural and financial contracts. The CBOT originally traded only agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn and soybeans. Now, the CBOT offers options and futures contracts on a wide range of products including gold, silver, U.S. Treasury bonds and energy." So it is not true the Chicago Board of Trade trades in simply raw commodities, but rather offers a range of futures contracts including OTC, as discussed in their transcript of on commodity exchanges offering OTC on their trading platforms. [5] Recently, commodity exchanges have opened the door to a number of problems as documented by Matt Taibbi: "Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals. They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum. And they're doing it not just here but abroad as well: In Denmark, thousands took to the streets in protest in recent weeks, vampire-squid banners in hand, when news came out that Goldman Sachs was about to buy a 19 percent stake in Dong Energy, a national electric provider. The furor inspired mass resignations of ministers from the government's ruling coalition, as the Danish public wondered how an American investment bank could possibly hold so much influence over the state energy grid." Taibbi adds, "Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation. It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays." The Pro side introduced a debate anything the commodity exchange he imagined. After forfeiting the second round, Pro then went on to make claims that are not true of commodity exchanges and were not true in terms of the points I initially raised. Commodity Exchanges trade in raw commodities, futures contracts, and derivatives. My opponent mentioned I said you could buy commodities for pennies. I will concede being inarticulate; however, the SEC page for prospective investors even reveals that can buy or sell"by that "execute buy and sell" orders through an exchange for pennies. I admit in previous rounds this was not made as clear, but I wanted to include that in these final remarks. [8] Finally, it is unclear why we would want to open up a national commodity exchange in the US, as it has been used recently as another avenue for extreme manipulation. Large financial institutions with a dubious interest in the actual commodities have begun to buy physical commodities, simply to hoard and use as guarantees for speculative bets in the derivatives market. Pro forfeited the second round and did not even make an argument for his side. VOTE CON! [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... [3] http://fortune.com... [4] http://www.investopedia.com... [5] http://www.sec.gov... [6] http://www.rollingstone.com... [7] Ibid. [8] https://www.sec.gov...

The US should subsidize the development of a national commodity exchange

Good jump start on the new POFO topic! Best of luck to you! I accept the debate and will post my 1st argument in Round 2. I will be arguing the PRO side.

American business, American trade secrets, American military tactics, Americans personal life are all at stake. America has been hacked, and is not able to do anything about it because the information is stolen. The hacker: China. They have stolen information from America for many years and are still continuing to steal even though they sign pacts and peace agreements. It is time for America to retrieve this stolen information and delete it out of China"s database. And it is for this reason that my partner and I stand firmly Resolved: The US government should implement the hack back system Before we go any further though, we must define a few key terms in Observation 1. Definitions 1.People"s Republic of China - a communist nation that covers a vast territory in eastern Asia; the most populous country in the world 2.Hack - use of a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system 3.Significant - in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention. 4.Reform - make changes in 5. Hack back - the ability for a country to trace a hack, and retrieve and delete any stolen information Observation 2. Standard The weighing mechanism for today"s debate round is protection of information. America should be allowed to keep trade and military secrets as well the information of those who work for the United States government private and secret. If a country violates our privacy, we have every right to trace that hack, retrieve the information, delete it, and possibly find the person responsible. By passing our plan, we will allow America to "hack back" when China violates our privacy, and when partner and I show you that we better uphold the protection of information than the status quo, by allowing us to hack back our information, an affirmative ballot is warranted. With the definitions and weighing mechanism established, let"s take a look at the situation in the current system in" Observation 2: Inherency Inherency: China backs hackers who get American info http://fortune.com... Since then, a new report has drawn direct connections between China"s People"s Liberation Army and a hacking operation of U.S. allies in the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported today about a hacker named Ge Xing: Through accounts allegedly tied to Mr. Ge, the report draws a direct link between his unit, People"s Liberation Army Unit 78020, a military intelligence arm based in China"s southwest, and a hacker collective known as Naikon that security researchers say has successfully penetrated key computer networks in countries competing with China for control over the South China Sea. MPX: China is backing hackers who break into the US database and steal valuable information and secrets. Inherency: The Chinese government is building an online cyber army http://fortune.com... Last week, it was revealed that Chinese hackers launched a massive cyber attack on the U.S. government, affecting 4 million current and former federal employees. The blackmail potential of such information, and the harm to U.S. national security, should be obvious. And the connection with China should not be surprising since the U.S. has been fighting this war for some time. A senior Chinese government official even stated recently that the country is assembling an "online army," which means that the cyber war between the U.S. and China is bound to heat up. MPX: China is currently building a cyber army to attack the US database and steal information Observation 4: Harms Harm: China is stealing valuable trade secrets http://time.com... Five Chinese military hackers employed by the Chinese government were accused yesterday of infiltrating American companies and stealing trade secrets. By charging the men with economic espionage and identity theft, among other crimes, the Department of Justice has set the stage for a tense standoff with the Chinese government. MPX: Chinese backed hackers are stealing secret American trade information which we will bring up upon request by the negative team but included solar power technology, nuclear power technology, inside information on US business strategy, etc. but not only has this hurt the US government, but it is hurting US businesses as we will see in the impact MPX: US businesses are harmed by the state backed Chinese hackers http://time.com... The apparent victims of the hacking are American titans: U.S. Steel, the nation"s oldest and biggest steel manufacturer and the lovechild of tycoons Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan; Alcoa, the world"s third-largest aluminum maker; Westinghouse Electrical Company, one of the world"s leading nuclear power developers; SolarWorld AG a leading solar technology company ; and the United Steelworkers, among America"s most iconic labor unions. Harm 2: Chinese state backed hacker steals sensitive defense information http://freebeacon.com... A Chinese businessman pleaded guilty this week to conspiracy to hack computer networks of U.S. defense contractors and obtain sensitive data on military aircraft that was passed on to China. The plea deal includes an admission by Su of conspiring with two people in China from October 2008 to March 2014 who broke into U.S. computer networks at Boeing and other defense companies. The hackers stole large amounts of military information that was supplied to China, according to court documents and a statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. The operation first gained access to some 630,000 Boeing computer files on the C-17 military transport aircraft technology in early 2009. The C-17 is the U.S. military"s main cargo aircraft. The data included details on the aircraft"s onboard computer. Other stolen files included data on the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, the military"s most advanced radar-evading stealth fighter jets. The F-22 data included details of an unspecified "training component" on the stealth jet used to launch missiles. MPX: Not only are the Chinese taking away our trade and business secrets, they are stealing our military secrets and plans and America does not make any efforts to regain or delete those documents. Observation 6: Solvency Solvency: America is capable of implementing the hack back system https://fcw.com... America has the big stick in cyberspace. But does it matter, if the rest of the world believes we won't use it? There's an awful lot the U.S. could do, and it might need to launch a cyber strike or two to get adversaries off its back. "We need to have people believe if they hack us there will be punishment," Lewis said. "We have the capability ... people don't think we'll do it." Today, we saw the damage that China is causing America through their thievery of our secrets, military tactics, etc. I leave you with this quote from Michelle van Cleave which perfectly sums up China in the cyber world. "The Chinese have a sophisticated network of tens of thousands human spies and computer hackers targeting American military and technological secrets, what they can"t acquire legally through trade, or creatively through mergers and acquisitions, they are prepared to steal." It"s time to combat their thievery by hacking back our information and for all these reasons, an affirmative ballot is not only warranted, but needed.

Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government

I think not.We are at an impasse.

should selt belt be illegal

No one is forced to invest in the Stock Market. You know the risks when entering the market; you should have the freedom to make your own decisions even if they are unwise. Shutting down the stock market would also reduce the amount of capital companies have to invest in the market. In turn reducing how well companies can produce products. It would be stupid to shut down the market. You have the choice to enter the market; if you fail it is your fault. You have the freedom to decide if you want to make risky investments.

SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

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.

Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed

Monopolies should be illegal. For the purpose of this debate, monopolies are businesses that have no competition in their field.

Monopolies should be illegal

Con says: "I see where you are coming from with the unethical reasons for why we cannot ban Jews." My response: Ok, so did Con just concede the debate? If not, major points for Pro to convince Con of how unethical it would be to disallow Jews in the USA. Pro continues to whine: "Jews offer relatively no benefit to business." My response: Who are these people then? Bill Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs Ivan Boesky, Wall Street financier and arbitrageur Steve Feinberg, co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. Jacob A. Frenkel, chairman of JPMorgan Chase International Marcus Goldman, co-founder of Goldman Sachs investment bank Alan Greenspan, Chairman and president of Townsend-Greenspan, economic consulting firm; former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Kohlberg, Jr., co-founder of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Henry Kravis, co-founder of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Bernard Madoff, former financier David Ren" de Rothschild, Banker, Current chairman of Rothschild and member of the Rothschild family Ronald Perelman, American billionaire investor Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary, director of National Economic Council, and Chairman of Citigroup Samuel Sachs, co-founder of Goldman Sachs investment bank Jacob H. Schiff, Wall street banker, leader of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Stephen A. Schwarzman, co-founder, chairman & CEO of The Blackstone Group George Soros, Wall Street investor and foreign currency speculator Michael Steinhardt, Wall Street hedge fund manager Regardless, even if Jews offer relatively no benefit to business, it's still not a reason to say they are an economic burden on our country. Also, I would like to point out, one could be born Christian and convert to Judaism. Con's generalizations should also apply to the Christian turned Jew too. Con has a misunderstanding of what classifies someone as Jewish or not. Also, there is no bias here, in fact, I support no religions; I support freedom and citizenship. Jews can stay!

Should Jews be allowed in the USA

I think self belt should be illegal

should selt belt be illegal

Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States

Pokemon should be allowed in school, its fun and entertaining for children before school.

Pokemon should be allowed in school.

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.

Companies and governments should be allowed to collect private data without permission or a warrant.

Ext

Tobacco Should Be Illegal.

Ext

Tobacco Should Be Illegal.

Offshore drilling has global economic benefits

Offshore drilling can cripple local economies.

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

creation of stocks should be banned

Top reasons why : https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be...

Too stupid not accept the idea that 9/11 was an inside Job!

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

creation of stocks should be banned

Note: The author and debator resides in New Zealand, so mostly uses sources from New Zealand news and other websites. Occasionally the author may use sources from other websites. In all cases, the author endeavors to link the original articles at the end of each argument or say the name of the website to show that work has been referenced (but not plagiarised). The author hopes you understand and remember this for this debate. They go by many names. In-app purchases, DLC, booster packs and loot boxes. All are only different by name, and can be summarised in one word. Microtransactions. From Angry Birds to Candy Crush and Poke"mon Go to Puzzlerama, all have microtransactions in one shape or form. These "very small financial transactions online", according to Oxford Dictionary, ruins minds and promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. These should not be in our lives, and as such should be banned. One of the reasons why microtransactions should be banned is that they encourage bad habits such as gambling. Imagine you have a chess set, and because you love Star Wars, it is a Star Wars chess set. Now imagine playing with a friend who spent $200 to have the chance that his pawns act like queens. What would you do? Would you play with the disadvantage, or pay money to be equal?(1) This is the premise behind loot boxes and booster packs. Both have random chances of giving you a certain item such as a new costume, and both do not always contain the items that you paid for. Sound familiar? Casinos use a similar premise with their slot machines. So are these loot boxes and booster packs a form of gambling? The gambling authorities of Belgium, China, Japan and Australia do, with South Korea and Germany already having regulations on them. However, the United States and New Zealand"s authorities say there is no gambling involved. The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs says that loot boxes are "a marketing tactic by companies to get the consumer to pay more money".(2) As such, it is not considered gambling and does not have any restrictions. Normally, this would be good for some people, but we have to consider the fact that children play these games too. Without any restrictions, young innocent minds can gamble freely with no repercussions, just as long as there is money they can spend. This behaviour is not good for children who do not know better. Microtransactions should be banned so that children do not develop the tendencies of a gambler, who wastes all their money on a virtual game trying to win something. (1)(2) A Beginners Guide to Loot boxes: Harmless Fun or Gambling? (Stuff.co.nz, 2017) https://www.stuff.co.nz...

ROFL... Anywho, I cordially accept and look forward to a stellar round. Good luck! Bench, you have the floor.

Resolved: Allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

I accept the 15 minutes debate challenge. I don't accept the Bible as the word of God. My opponent needs to prove that it is. He also needs to explain if this is a serious debate or not, because I checked out his profile and I couldn't make up my mind on whether he was a troll or a radical Christian.I argue that we should allow homosexuality because it is a form of mutual love between two mature human beings, and because my anus only belongs to me.I await pro's reply.

Homosexuality should be illegal

Obviously, the cloud of smoke exactly disturbs other people; especially non-smokers feeling. Imagine sitting in a restuarant unable to enjoy the meal because of the smoke from neighbor's table. It should be banned because the percentage of non-smokers is higher than active smokers so non-smokers have right to clean air and also second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking as well. >>> So are you saying pyromaniacs should be able to light fires as they please and theyre just being discriminated against because they dont occupy wall street?

Yes, it should be banned

I accept.

Unregulated capitalism is amoral

I haven't heard a single good argument for it so someone who supports it give me some points and I'll respond

Should Don't ask don't tell be allowed

"courts that you value would have to be paid for by "government holding a gun to peoples' heads" by instituting taxes" I've told you repeatedly that I am not an anarchist. I believe government should be stripped down to the most basic services-- namely national defense, courts and law enforcement. That would result in lower taxes and fewer infringements, leaving more money in the pockets of citizens who will be free to spend as they choose on products, services and causes they deem most worthy. Anything society values will flourish. Anything it does not will whither away. Talk about true freedom and pure democracy. Now you understand why some equate capitalism with freedom. Anyway back to the debate. You can't be serious, spouting that the motives of a few corrupt companies or individuals can be used to condemn the entire private sector. You say that companies will screw each other and their customers "without some entity omnipresent to ensure the rules are followed." A companies job is to be the best it can be and to win over the dollars of it's prospective customers. By doing so, it will incidentally force INFERIOR competitors out of business. But that is a good thing and a result of mediocrity on the part of that competitor. A company's pursuit of excellence is not an attack on or the "screwing" of his competitor. That's like saying the athlete who trained harder and won the 100 yard dash "screwed" his fellow competitors? As far as screwing customers, I can't think of one company that can survive for long by biting the hand that feeds it. Despite bad press, even those evil insurance companies pay almost all of their claims. When a company does a disservice to its customers with any regularity, no "omnipresent entity" needs to step in. Consumers vote with their wallets. It's called freedom.

"Profit is inherently dishonest." -- Mindjob

Con has forfeited Round 3.

Cigarets Should Be Illegal.

Many with experience doing interrogations have found that aggressive tactics are the best, and somet...

Torture in Interrogation Should Be Allowed

Where it is true that there are legal anomalies, these exist for good reason. Foreign governments can choose to reveal their intelligence gathering methods if they want, that does not mean the British government should. If one of the subjects of a wiretap is an agent or informer then it follows that we should be able to record this conversation just as when undercover agents wear wires. Further, private internal networks are technically easy to intercept as they are small and fixed.\ However, the opposition do not have to argue that the legal limbo at the moment is acceptable. Instead they can argue for a blanket ban on any such evidence and a strict separation between intelligence gathering and prosecution activities.

Those countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a bizarre form of legal limbo in ...

It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. Ultimately, World Trade Organisation membership should not restrict the United States’ freedom of action. WTO membership already carries a high price in preventing the US Administration from protecting American industries and farmers from unfair foreign competition, including dumping. As US jobs are increasingly outsourced abroad, it may be time to reconsider our membership of the WTO. Given the USA’s economic weight and friendly relations with developed democracies around the world, bilateral and regional trade deals could be a preferable alternative to the WTO.

It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. ...

I am against this because although I am not an American, the 4th Amendment to the constitution has written, " It Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures." the idea behind the warrant system requires probable cause. This was written into law to stop governments from being allowed to collect data and mantle mass surveillance. The recent PRISM leaks, are an unacceptable breach of the United State's own Constitution. If the PRISM system was useful at stopping terrorist attacks, how did the Boston Bombing instigator's slip through the program? even they would have had to have used a telephone, or an email, which should have been picked up. If surveillance of every person in the world is becoming acceptable in the name of 'security against terrorism'. what other crime will you allow your government to commit for 'security'

I've been skimming the arguments here and I notice a common trend. People who have interesting, but controversial opinions tend to start their arguments with "PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THIS INSTEAD OF JUST VOTING AGAINST MY POSITION". It is really sad that these kind of statements are necessary. Thus, I suggest that debate.org appoint moderators who can patrol debates and vote on the winner. These people would be the cream of the debate.org crop or simply people well versed in argumentation and they could provide reasonable decisions with actual reasons for decision. Or, at a minimum, it should be optional. The debates progenitor should be able to make voting open or closed depending on preferences.

open voting on debate.org should be abolished or curtailed

Yes but if we banned weirdos, people like einstein would never succeed. Weirdness is not sufficient grounds to render something illegal.

Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.

I will accept the challenge and I hope for a fair debate

The Free Market Should Be Restricted

Change is inevitable... except from a vending machine.

Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA.

This is for the semi-final round of Weirdo Weirdman's tournament. Looking forward to it. I'll argue porn should be legal, con will argue it should be illegal. Standard debating rules. I don't think definitions are necesary, but if Con wants, I'll add them. First round is acceptance. Good luck.

Porn should be legal

Offshore drilling poses environmental risks

Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore

Pro Dropped all arguements.

Business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in the private sector

The topic of debate is absurd statement made by my liberal friend, Mindjob. I'd like to see him defend it.

Opponent gives round to me via concession.

I believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job!

he If the OS market had more competition and had 10 companies, each with an equal market share of 10%, then it would be very difficult for software programs to be available to everyone so if there were more componies instead of microsoft like lets say 20 even 10 it would be a mess because games like call of duty would take longer to make doing it with 10 diffrent sofwares at a time. Then you are going to say something about walmart right?? well here is a little example from a paragraph "if I am holding a basketball tournament to find the best basketball team (a consumer finding the lowest price), I would like as many teams to join into the tournament as possible (more competition is good). Preventing teams from joining would be bad (barriers to entry). However, as the tournament progresses, teams will be eliminated (consumers choosing not to shop at expensive businesses). Eventually, there may be a winner (e.g. Wal-Mart). In most industries, the tournament never ends and there is not a winner because many teams are often equally matched and/or new teams continually enter the tournament."

Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil

It is all delaying and worsening the innevitable

Economy

Junk Food Should Be Banned

Pro has forfeited Round 2.

should selt belt be illegal

Pro has forfeited Round 4.

should selt belt be illegal

Due to my shining brilliance, distracted thoughts of simian slavery or an imbalance of the humours my good opponent has accidentally messed up his round 2, so we will ignore it, skip to round three and consider it a two round debate!

It should be legal to sell cytoplasmic hybrid animals to the general public

Tobacco Should Be Illegal.

Done

The United States should regulate trade.

OOXML Must be good somehow Is legal should have second vote over 50% support it only 25% don't want it GO OOXML!!!

OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

England Summary

This is a debate of whether or not trade with China should be banned. The parameters are to be set for trading with the US and trading is limited in definition to being only for tangible elements or items not including intellectual items. This was a class debate. I won, but my friend (who was my opponent) wants me to debate on DDO to be his "rematch. "

Ban Trade With China

While there are probably a lot of people out there who would be quite content never to read another constructive essay about Mr. Nick, Nick should be responsible for his own actions. Before I get moving here, let me point out that I should note that by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, Nick has made "experience" all-important. His experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly condone universal oppression in a matter of days. He speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to create a system of exclusivism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity. Nick offers his hirelings a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if he didn't, you might come to realize that while decent people sit by, snore, and have their maws open, he is out wooing over uppity, vile lie-virtuosi by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Nick is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. In fact, that's exactly what Nick does as part of his quest to entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of rotten fault-finders. By now, the reader has discerned that what I call wild, fastidious pickpockets represent one of the most bookish wings of gutless sexism you can possibly find. So let me just add that prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially his unimaginative form of it—is. There's a lot of talk nowadays about Nick's insecure "compromises" but not much action. If you looked up "devious" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Nick's picture. We can quibble about many of the details but we can't quibble about the fundamental fact that we must move as expeditiously as possible to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to snooker people of every stripe into believing that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Nick's personal interests are at stake. Let's start by informing people that Nick acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. Nick somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (he has his moral compass in tact), distortions (the majority of doctrinaire psychopaths are heroes, if not saints), and misplaced idealism (everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "sphygmomanometric". He yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, Nick abhors the current era, in which people are free to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. Please don't ask me to marginalize the traditions and truths upon which our nation's greatness sits. I simply can't do that. Nick contends that we should all bear the brunt of his actions and that, therefore, all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces sanctimonious vagabonds (as distinct from the patronizing pamphleteers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the worst classes of effrontive rabble-rousers there are should be given absolute authority to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. In reality, contrariwise, if Nick's jealous jibes became more widespread, it would spell the ruination of this country. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Mr. Nick. Vote Pro. We have all the cookies.

US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

Pro forfeited Round 3.

should selt belt be illegal

Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy

not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients

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...

Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.

1] first of all my opponent has to prove two things:a] the jewish firm in wall street know beforehand that the respective airlines will be used for attack.b] insider trading is illegal everywhere. my opponent has to prove that the jewish firm is doing insider trading.after proving these 2 facts he can say that the jewish firm know about attack beforehand.2] mosad agents are happy for the same reason natanyahu was happy. america is going to attack arabs now. this do not prove that mosad is involved in this massacre.3] natanyahu's expression does not show that he is involved in this attack. if today similar attack is caused by pakistan or china in the U.S., india and indians will be very happy. but that does not prove that india is involved in the attack.4] you say amdocs are tapping your phone calls. how do you know that? what are the evidence you have that lead you to this conclusion? there are many reason why radios went down during the attack.5] presence of spy ring of a foreign country is a very normal matter. in israel, CIA network was there. in india both CIA and mosad network works. so this is no danger signal.6] only U.S. govt. can explain why it announce 19 perpetrator? what happened?see my opponent has no proof supporting his claim. so i win.

Israeli Involvement in 9/11

Many thanks to Rob 1 Billion (any relation to Bernie Madoff?) for accepting this debate and please accept my apologies for pressing Con instead of Pro. It would appear that we both broadly share the same view of peddlers of paranormal products but differ on the best way to tackle the problem. My opponent has made a number of contentions which I would like to address as follows: Contentions 1 & 4 My opponent rightly points out how supernatural con-merchants would seek to circumvent any regulations and continue to rip-off willfully misguided customers. Indeed, I have no doubt that many of these swindling tricksters would adopt his suggested ploys or even seek to rebrand themselves as follows: Before / After Fortune teller / fortune guesser Feng shui practitioner / furniture rearranger holistic medicine seller / placebo merchant Witchdoctor / ethnic dancer Shaman priest / voodoo stick-waver Astrologist / storyteller Never mind this though, what they will be doing will still be illegal, no matter how they dress up their nefarious activities. There is a precedent here. A drug dealer may sell a customer a wrap of cocaine for $100 and both the pusher and the punter will be happy with the arrangement, even though the customer knows that the drugs will do him harm. That's why the law steps in to protect him from himself. Of course, drug dealing continues to be widespread despite being illegal but that is no reason to decriminalise it so that we can go down the street and pop into a Megabucks Colombian Crack House for half an ounce of Charlie and a cappuccino, or walk into a branch of Smacko Bell's for a line of coke and, er...a glass of Coke. Contention 2 Once again, I agree that there is a fine line between superstitious beliefs and religious beliefs - a very fine line indeed. And, true, who is to say that a belief in Christianity is any more legitimate than a belief in astrology or voodoo magic? The reality is that certain religions are recognised by the state so that, in the United States for example, a Christian preacher doesn't pay income tax on sales of bibles whereas a Shaman priest flogging voodoo dolls or a gypsy peddling lucky heather does. I know it's not right, but certain religions occupy constitutionally privileged positions in many countries and there's not much that can be done about that. Contention 3 We, as a society, must make a collective judgement on which, if any, religion or superstitious belief is rational and beneficial. The most qualified people to do this are scientists as they concentrate on evidence, facts and the balance of probability to arrive at a conclusion. Religious people cannot be trusted to make an impartial decision - a devout Jew, for example, is unlikely, after considering all the evidence, to reach the conclusion that Pastafarianism is the one true faith and that we should all pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Of course, scientists will never be able to prove absolutely that the pattern of tea leaves left in the bottom of a cup cannot be used as a reliable predictor of future events but the burden of proof should be that superstitions are, beyond reasonable doubt, irrational and without merit, and making a profit from them should be outlawed. In conclusion, it is a government's prime responsibility to protect its citizens, from enemies from abroad and also enemies within, whether they be drug dealers or grasping spirit world mediums who prey on berevead relatives hoping to make a profit out of their grief. Thank you.

Exploiting people's superstitions for profit should be made a criminal offence

>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.

Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed

Okay this normally isn't my style but I decided to give it a try this time. If steroids become legal, it would be something anybody else has the option to use, such as a better shoe or style of swimsuit. The user would know the risks. In order to buy the steriods, what would be wrong in making the person pass a test before getting the drug, that says [s]he knows the risks, and then sign a paper that [s]he understands the risks that could come from it. People do alot of unhealthy things, some of those people the children look up to. Should every health risk be illegal, because children might look up to the person that takes the risk? Should the military be banned because by joining you have a risk of dying any day, at anytime, and children might want to join? So why should anaboolic steroids be banned?

Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.

of course they should

social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces

There are different types of smart, and if we're using the literal meaning of educated, then yes. However, smart people can make bad decisions by accepting what they believe to be common sense in a field that is not their expertise.Let's say that Martha Stuart was "educated" on what was happening at Enron; however, she was not aware of the laws regarding insider information. Her decision was an ultimately bad one because it landed her in prison.

Only smart people can make a smart decision

Banned*. And that just adds some drama to the Games, it'll be great! Knock em back I say.

Should steroids be allowed in the Olympics

Pity the poor little rich boy. His father was away on business for the week and on Monday night he borrowed a big wad of his daddy's cash and took it down to the casino. On the roulette table he staked high value chips on obscure bets such as voisins du zero, finales en plein and tiers du cylindre. For nights on end, he was wildly successful, raking in the chips hand over fist. That week he lived an even more lavish lifestyle than he was used to, spending his winnings on the finest food and wine available to mankind and on entertaining high-class prostitutes in luxury hotels. However, come Thursday night his luck changed and he did his brains by placing all his chips on black and when the ball landed on red he lost every last cent of his daddy's money. Well, his father was due back on Friday night and our profligate playboy had only hours to replace all the cash that he had gambled and lost. But what could he do? There was no way to earn it – he hadn't done an honest day's work in life. No, the only answer was to go to the local social security office and ask them to bail him out. If you were the cashier at the social security office, would you give the troubled playboy a big pile of taxpayers' cash to save his bacon? I don't think so. This is a metaphor, of course, for what has happened in the finance industry. A lot of very greedy, highly irresponsible investment bankers made incredible amounts of money chasing short-term profits (rather than investing in long-term gains), and now the chickens have come home to roost and the entire industry is in meltdown. Well, that's capitalism for you. You take the rough with smooth. The winner takes all and let the devil take the hindmost. There's no room for losers in this society. But wait. What's this? No, it can't be? The American government is riding to the financiers' rescue and are splashing out hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars on shoring up failed investment bankers in their hour of need. That's not capitalism; it's socialism, except that the financial safety net is there just for the rich – ordinary hardworking families have to take their chances as per normal. The US Federal Government is, in effect, playing Robin Hood in reverse – taking from the poor and giving to the rich. This action is contrary to all norms of social justice. Failing financial institutions should be allowed to go to the wall – the taxpayer has no obligation whatsoever to cover greedy bankers' losses.

The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

Round one acceptanceSecret topics: Topics hidden until the beginning of the debate. The debaters choose the side, then the topic is randomly selected. These topics are chosen from this link: http://www.edeb8.com....The only exception considered is " That governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for the public" (Because that topic is ridiculously biased) DDO: Debate.orgNo trolling nor semantics.

This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!